Item 1A. Risk Factors

Set forth below are the risk factors that we believe are material to our investors. The occurrence of any of the risks discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, ability to pay distributions and the value of our common stock.

Risks Related to Our Properties and Operations

We have incurred net losses on a U.S. GAAP basis for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013.

We have incurred net losses on a U.S. GAAP basis for the years ended December 31, 2015 , 2014 , or 2013 of $41.7 million , $37.7 million and $0.2 million , respectively. Our losses can be attributed, in part, to acquisition related expenses and depreciation and amortization. We are subject to all of the business risks and uncertainties associated with any business, including the risk that the value of a stockholder's investment could decline substantially. We were incorporated on October 15, 2012. As of December 31, 2015 , we have acquired 166 properties. We cannot assure you that, in the future, we will be profitable or that we will realize growth in the value of our assets.

We depend upon our Advisor and our Property Manager to provide us with executive officers and key personnel and our operating performance may be impacted by any adverse changes in the financial health of our Advisor.

We have no employees. Personnel and services that we require are provided to us under contracts with our Advisor. We depend on our Advisor and our Property Manager to manage our operations and acquire and manage our portfolio of real estate assets. Our Advisor makes all decisions with respect to the management of our company, subject to the supervision of, and any guidelines established by, our board of directors.

Our success depends to a significant degree upon the contributions of our executive officers and other key personnel of our Advisor and our Property Manager. Our executive officers are also executive officers of a non-traded REIT with similar investment objectives to ours which is sponsored and advised by entities under common control with our Sponsor and our Advisor. Competition for such skilled personnel is intense, and we cannot assure you that our Advisor will be successful in attracting and retaining such skilled personnel capable of meeting the needs of our business. We cannot guarantee that all, or any particular one of these key personnel, will continue to provide services to us or our Advisor, and the loss of any of these key personnel could cause our operating results to suffer. Further, we have not and do not intend to separately maintain key person life insurance on any of our Advisor’s key personnel. Moreover, any adverse changes in the financial health of our Advisor or our Property Manager could negatively impact their ability to supply us with the key personnel necessary for successful operations.

In addition, our Advisor and our Property Manager depend upon the fees and other compensation that they receive from us in connection with the management of our business and sale of our properties to conduct their operations. Any adverse changes in the financial condition of, or our relationship with, our Advisor or Property Manager could hinder their ability to successfully manage our operations and our portfolio of investments. Additionally, changes in ownership or management practices, the occurrence of adverse events affecting our Advisor or its affiliates or other companies advised by our Advisor and its affiliates could create adverse publicity and adversely affect us and our relationship with lenders, tenants or counterparties.

There is no public trading market for our shares and there may never be one.

Our shares are not listed on a national securities exchange and there currently is no established trading market for our shares and no assurance that one will develop. There is no assurance that our shares will in fact be listed on an exchange in the near future, if at all, or of the price at which the shares would trade or the volume that would develop. Unless our shares are listed, purchasers in so-called secondary market transactions must satisfy applicable suitability and minimum purchase standards and the sale must not violate state securities laws. Those requirements may further limit the ability of stockholders to sell shares.

If we, through our Advisor, are unable to find further suitable investments, then we may not be able to achieve our investment objectives or pay distributions, which would adversely affect the value of an investment in our shares.

Our ability to achieve our investment objectives and to pay distributions is dependent upon the performance of our Advisor in acquiring our investments, selecting tenants for our properties and securing independent financing arrangements. Our Advisor may not be successful in obtaining further suitable investments on financially attractive terms or that, if it makes investments on our behalf, our objectives will be achieved.

We may suffer from delays in locating further suitable investments or may lack the available capital to make a suitable investment, which could adversely affect our ability to make distributions and the value of an investment in our shares.

We could suffer from delays in locating further suitable investments, particularly as a result of our reliance on our Advisor at times when management of our Advisor is simultaneously seeking to locate suitable investments for other affiliated programs. Delays we encounter in the selection, acquisition and, if we develop properties, development of income-producing properties, likely would adversely affect our ability to make distributions and our overall returns. Generally, we may continue to fund distributions from unlimited amounts of any source, including borrowing funds, issuing additional securities or selling assets in order to fund distributions if we are unable to make distributions with our cash flows from our operations. Using these sources reduces the proceeds we have available to invest in properties and other real estate assets. If we encounter any such delays, we may pay a substantial portion of our distributions from borrowings in anticipation of future cash flow. In particular, where we acquire properties prior to the start of construction or during the early stages of construction, it typically will take several months to complete construction and rent available space. Therefore, we could suffer delays in the receipt of cash flow in properties and other real estate assets attributable to those particular properties.

We may change our targeted investments without stockholder consent.

We have acquired and expect to continue to acquire a diversified portfolio of healthcare-related assets including MOBs, seniors housing communities and other healthcare-related facilities. We may make adjustments to our target portfolio based on real estate market conditions and investment opportunities, and we may change our targeted investments and investment guidelines at any time without the consent of our stockholders, which could result in our making investments that are different from, and possibly riskier than, initially anticipated. A change in our targeted investments or investment guidelines may increase our exposure to interest rate risk, default risk and real estate market fluctuations.

We may be unable to maintain distributions over time.

There are many factors that can affect the availability and timing of cash distributions to stockholders, including the amount of cash flow that we generate from operations. In the past, we have not generated, and may not in the future generate, operating cash flows sufficient to continue to pay dividends to our stockholders at the current rate. Our cash flows provided by operations were $65.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 . During the year ended December 31, 2015 , we paid distributions of $145.4 million , of which $58.6 million , or 40.3% , was funded from proceeds from our cash flows from operations, $68.1 million , or 46.8% , was funded from proceeds from our IPO which were reinvested in common stock issued under our DRIP and $18.7 million , or 12.9% , was funded from proceeds from the sale of investment securities. Our IPO closed in November 2014 and all proceeds from the IPO have been invested. During the year ended December 31, 2015 , cash flow from operations included an increase in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $5.2 million . Accordingly, if these accounts payable and accrued expenses had been paid during the years ended December 31, 2015 , there would have been $5.2 million less in cash flow from operations.

We may not generate sufficient cash flows from operations to pay future distributions. The amount of cash available for distributions is affected by many factors, such as any property acquisitions, rental income from acquired properties and our operating expense levels, as well as many other variables. Actual cash available for distributions may vary substantially from estimates. With limited operating history, we cannot assure our stockholders that we will be able to continue to pay distributions or that distributions will increase over time. We cannot give any assurance that rents from the properties we have acquired will increase, or that future acquisitions of real properties will increase our cash available for distributions to stockholders. Our actual results may differ significantly from the assumptions used by our board of directors in establishing a distribution rate to stockholders.

If we do not generate sufficient cash flows from our operations, we expect to use a portion of our cash on hand and the proceeds from our DRIP to pay distributions. A decrease in the level of stockholder participation in our DRIP could have an adverse impact on our ability to meet these expectations. If these sources are insufficient, we may use other sources, such as from borrowings, the sale of additional securities, advances from our Advisor, and our Advisor's deferral, suspension or waiver of its fees and expense reimbursements, as to which it has no obligation, to fund distributions.

Funding distributions from any of these sources may reduce the amount of capital we ultimately invest in any properties and other permitted investments, have available for other purposes and may negatively impact the value of an investment in our common stock. There is no guarantee that we will pay any particular amount of distributions, if at all. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain funds from such sources, or pay or maintain our current level of dividends.

Funding distributions from borrowings could restrict the amount we can borrow for investments, which may affect our profitability. Funding distributions with the sale of assets may affect our ability to generate additional operating cash flows. Funding distributions from the sale of additional securities could dilute each stockholder's interest in us if we sell shares of our common stock or securities that are convertible or exercisable into shares of our common stock to third-party investors. Payment of distributions from the mentioned sources could restrict our ability to generate sufficient cash flows from operations, affect our profitability or affect the distributions payable to stockholders upon a liquidity event, any or all of which may have an adverse effect on an investment in our shares.

We may not have sufficient cash from operations to make a distribution required to maintain our REIT status, which may materially adversely affect an investment in our common stock. Moreover, our board of directors may change our distribution policy, in its sole discretion, at any time.

If we internalize our management functions, we may be unable to obtain key personnel, and our ability to achieve our investment objectives could be delayed or hindered, which could adversely affect our ability to pay distributions and the value of an investment in our shares.

We may engage in an internalization transaction and become self-managed in the future. If we internalize our management functions, certain key employees of our Advisor may not become our employees but may instead remain employees of our Advisor or its affiliates. An inability to manage an internalization transaction effectively could also result in our incurring excess costs and suffering deficiencies in our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting. Such deficiencies could cause us to incur additional costs, and our management's attention could be diverted from most effectively managing our investments, which could result in litigation and resulting associated costs in connection with the internalization transaction.

Our Advisor may lose or be unable to obtain key personnel, due to, among other things, another AR Global-sponsored program internalizing its advisor and hiring such personnel, which could delay or hinder our ability to implement our investment strategies.

Our future success depends, in large part, upon our Advisor’s ability to hire and retain highly skilled managerial, operational and marketing personnel. Competition for such personnel is intense, and we cannot assure our stockholders that our Advisor and its affiliates will be successful in attracting and retaining such skilled individuals. If our Advisor loses or is unable to obtain the services of key personnel, our ability to implement our investment strategies could be delayed or hindered, and the value of an investment in our common stock may decline.

On December 18, 2015, Thomas P. D’Arcy stepped down as chief executive officer, president and secretary of our company and our Advisor to pursue other opportunities. Also on December 18, 2015, Edward F. Lange, Jr. stepped down as chief financial officer and treasurer to pursue other opportunities. There were no disagreements between us and Mr. D’Arcy or us and Mr. Lange.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to recover claims against our officers, directors and Advisor are limited, which could reduce stockholders' and our recovery against them if they cause us to incur losses.

Maryland law provides that a director has no liability in that capacity if he or she performs his or her duties in good faith, in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the corporation's best interests and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. In addition, subject to certain limitations set forth therein or under Maryland law, our charter provides that no director or officer will be liable to us or our stockholders for monetary damages and requires us to indemnify our directors, officers and Advisor and our Advisor's affiliates and permits us to indemnify our employees and agents.

Although our charter does not allow us to indemnify or hold harmless an indemnitee to a greater extent than permitted under Maryland law, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights against our directors, officers, employees and agents, and our Advisor and its affiliates, than might otherwise exist under common law, which could reduce our stockholders and our recovery against them. In addition, we may be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by our directors, officers, employees and agents or our Advisor and its affiliates in some cases which would decrease the cash otherwise available for distribution to stockholders.

Our business could suffer in the event our Advisor or any other party that provides us with services essential to our operations experiences system failures or cyber-incidents or a deficiency in cybersecurity.

Despite system redundancy, the implementation of security measures and the existence of a disaster recovery plan for the internal information technology systems of our Advisor and other parties that provide us with services essential to our operations, these systems are vulnerable to damage from any number of sources, including computer viruses, unauthorized access, energy blackouts, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication failures. Any system failure or accident that causes interruptions in our operations could result in a material disruption to our business.

A cyber-incident is considered to be any adverse event that threatens the confidentiality, integrity or availability of information resources. More specifically, a cyber-incident is an intentional attack or an unintentional event that can result in third parties gaining unauthorized access to systems to disrupt operations, corrupt data, or steal confidential information. As reliance on technology in our industry has increased, so have the risks posed to the systems of our Advisor and other parties that provide us with services essential to our operations, both internal and those that have been outsourced. In addition, the risk of a cyber-incident, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Even the most well protected information, networks, systems and facilities remain potentially vulnerable because the techniques used in such attempted attacks and intrusions evolve and generally are not recognized until launched against a target, and in some cases are designed not to be detected and, in fact, may not be detected.

The remediation costs and lost revenues experienced by a victim of a cyber-incident may be significant and significant resources may be required to repair system damage, protect against the threat of future security breaches or to alleviate problems, including reputational harm, loss of revenues and litigation, caused by any breaches. In addition, a security breach or other significant disruption involving the IT networks and related systems of our Advisor or any other party that provides us with services essential to our operations could:

Although our Advisor and other parties that provide us with services essential to our operations intend to continue to implement industry-standard security measures, there can be no assurance that those measures will be sufficient, and any material adverse effect experienced by our Advisor and other parties that provide us with services essential to our operations could, in turn, have an adverse impact on us.

The purchase price per share for shares issued under the DRIP and the repurchase price of our shares under our share repurchase program will be based on our NAV, which will be based upon subjective judgments, assumptions and opinions about future events, and may not reflect the amount that our stockholders might receive for their shares in a market transaction.

We intend to publish an estimated per share NAV as of December 31, 2015 on or before April 11, 2016. Our Advisor has engaged an independent valuer to perform appraisals of our real estate assets in accordance with valuation guidelines established by our board of directors. As with any methodology used to estimate value, the valuation methodologies that will be used by any independent valuer to value our properties involve subjective judgments concerning factors such as comparable sales, rental and operating expense data, capitalization or discount rate, and projections of future rent and expenses.

Under our valuation guidelines, our independent valuer estimates the market value of our principal real estate and real estate-related assets, and our Advisor determines the net value of our real estate and real estate-related assets and liabilities taking into consideration such estimate provided by the independent valuer. Our Advisor reviews the valuation provided by the independent valuer for consistency with its determinations of value and our valuation guidelines and the reasonableness of the independent valuer's conclusions. Our board of directors reviews the appraisals and valuations and makes a final determination of the estimated per share NAV. Although the valuations of our real estate assets by the independent valuer are reviewed by our Advisor and approved by our board of directors, neither our Advisor nor our board of directors will independently verify the appraised value of our properties and valuations do not necessarily represent the price at which we would be able to sell an asset. As a result, the appraised value of a particular property may be greater or less than its potential realizable value, which would cause our estimated per share NAV to be greater or less than the potential realizable NAV.

Because they are based on estimated per share NAV, the price at which our shares may be sold under the DRIP and the price at which our shares may be repurchased by us pursuant to the SRP may not reflect the price that our stockholders would receive for their shares in a market transaction.

Because valuations will only occur periodically, estimated per share NAV may not accurately reflect material events that would impact our NAV and may suddenly change materially if the appraised values of our properties change materially or the actual operating results differ from what we originally budgeted.

Following the initial valuation of estimated per share NAV, subsequent valuations will occur periodically, at the discretion of our board of directors, provided that such calculations will be made at least once annually. In connection with any periodic valuation, which are generally expected to be conducted annually, our Advisor's estimate of the value of our real estate and real estate-related assets will be partly based on appraisals of our properties, which we expect will only be appraised in connection with a periodic valuation. Any changes in value that may have occurred since the most recent periodic valuation will not be reflected in estimated per share NAV, and there may be a sudden change in the estimated per share NAV when new appraisals and other material events are reflected. To the extent actual operating results differ from our original estimates, estimated per share NAV may be affected, but we will not retroactively or proactively adjust estimated per share NAV because our actual results from operations may be better or worse than what we previously budgeted for any period. If our actual operating results cause our NAV to change, such change will only be reflected in our estimated per share NAV when a periodic valuation is completed.

Because valuations will only occur periodically, our estimated per share NAV may differ significantly from our actual NAV at any given time.

Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest

We will be subject to conflicts of interest arising out of our relationships with our Advisor and its affiliates, including the material conflicts discussed below.

Our Advisor faces conflicts of interest relating to the acquisition of assets and leasing of properties and such conflicts may not be resolved in our favor, meaning that we could invest in less attractive assets.

We rely on our Advisor and its executive officers and other key real estate professionals at our Advisor and our Property Manager to identify suitable investment opportunities for us. Several of the other key real estate professionals of our Advisor are also the key real estate professionals at our Sponsor and its other public programs. Many investment opportunities that are suitable for us may also be suitable for other programs sponsored directly or indirectly by the parent of our sponsor. For example, HT III seeks, like us, to acquire a diversified portfolio of healthcare-related assets. The investment opportunity allocation agreement we have entered into with HT III may result in us not being able to acquire separate properties identified by our Advisor and its affiliates.

In addition, we may acquire properties in geographic areas where other AR Global-sponsored or any service provider-sponsored programs own properties. Also, we may acquire properties from, or sell properties to, other AR Global-sponsored programs. If one of the other AR Global-sponsored programs attracts a tenant that we are competing for, we could suffer a loss of revenue due to delays in locating another suitable tenant.

Our Advisor faces conflicts of interest relating to joint ventures, which could result in a disproportionate benefit to the other venture partners at our expense.

We may enter into joint ventures with other AR Global-sponsored programs for the acquisition, development or improvement of properties. Our Advisor may have conflicts of interest in determining which AR Global-sponsored program should enter into any particular joint venture agreement. The co-venturer may have economic or business interests or goals that are or may become inconsistent with our business interests or goals. In addition, our Advisor may face a conflict in structuring the terms of the relationship between our interests and the interest of the affiliated co-venturer and in managing the joint venture. Since our Advisor and its affiliates will control both the affiliated co-venturer and, to a certain extent, us, agreements and transactions between the co-venturers with respect to any such joint venture will not have the benefit of arm's-length negotiation of the type normally conducted between unrelated co-venturers, which may result in the co-venturer receiving benefits greater than the benefits that we receive. In addition, we may assume liabilities related to the joint venture that exceeds the percentage of our investment in the joint venture.

Our Advisor and Sponsor and their officers and employees and certain of our executive officers and other key personnel face competing demands relating to their time, and this may cause our operating results to suffer.

Our Advisor and Sponsor and their officers and employees and certain of our executive officers and other key personnel and their respective affiliates are key personnel, general partners, sponsors, managers, owners and advisors of other real estate investment programs, including AR Global-sponsored REITs, some of which have investment objectives and legal and financial obligations similar to ours and may have other business interests as well. Some REITs will have concurrent or overlapping operational, disposition and liquidation phases as us, which may cause conflicts of interest to arise with respect to, among other things, locating and acquiring properties, entering into leases and disposing of properties. Because these persons have competing demands on their time and resources, they may have conflicts of interest in allocating their time between our business and these other activities. If this occurs, the returns on our investments may suffer.

All of our executive officers, some of our directors and the key real estate and other professionals assembled by our Advisor and our Property Manager face conflicts of interest related to their positions or interests in affiliates of our Sponsor, which could hinder our ability to implement our business strategy.

All of our executive officers, some of our directors and the key real estate and other professionals assembled by our Advisor and Property Manager are also executive officers, directors, managers, key professionals or holders of a direct or indirect controlling interests in our Advisor and our Property Manager or other Sponsor-affiliated entities. Through our Sponsor’s affiliates, some of these persons work on behalf of programs sponsored directly or indirectly by the parent of our Sponsor. As a result, they have loyalties to each of these entities, which loyalties could conflict with the fiduciary duties they owe to us and could result in action or inaction detrimental to our business. Conflicts with our business and interests are most likely to arise from (a) allocation of investments and management time and services between us and the other entities, (b) our purchase of properties from, or sale of properties to, entities sponsored by affiliates of our Advisor, (c) investments with entities sponsored by affiliates of our Advisor, (d) compensation to our Advisor and (e) our relationship with our Advisor and our Property Manager. If we do not successfully implement our business strategy, we may be unable to generate the cash needed to make distributions to our stockholders and to maintain or increase the value of our assets.

The conflicts of interest inherent in the incentive fee structure of our arrangements with our Advisor and its affiliates could result in actions that are not necessarily in the long-term best interests of our stockholders, including required payments if we terminate the advisory agreement, even for poor performance by our Advisor.

Under our advisory agreement and the limited partnership agreement of our operating partnership, or the partnership agreement, the special limited partner and its affiliates will be entitled to fees, distributions and other amounts that are structured in a manner intended to provide incentives to our Advisor to perform in our best interests. However, because our Advisor does not maintain a significant equity interest in us and is entitled to receive substantial minimum compensation regardless of performance, its interests may not be wholly aligned with those of our stockholders. In that regard, our Advisor could be motivated to recommend riskier or more speculative investments in order for us to generate the specified levels of performance or sales proceeds that would entitle it or the special limited partner to fees. In addition, the special limited partner and its affiliates’ entitlement to fees and distributions upon the sale of our assets and to participate in sale proceeds could result in our Advisor recommending sales of our investments at the earliest possible time at which sales of investments would produce the level of return that would entitle our Advisor and its affiliates, including the special limited partner, to compensation relating to such sales, even if continued ownership of those investments might be in our best long-term interest. In addition, our advisory agreement, property management agreement and other agreements with our Advisor and its affiliates include covenants and conditions that are subject to interpretation and could result in disagreements.

Moreover, the partnership agreement requires our operating partnership to pay a performance-based termination distribution to the special limited partner or its assignees if we terminate the advisory agreement, even for poor performance by our Advisor, prior to the listing of our shares for trading on an exchange or, absent such listing, in respect of its participation in net sales proceeds. To avoid paying this distribution, our independent directors may decide against terminating the advisory agreement prior to our listing of our shares or disposition of our investments even if, but for the termination distribution, termination of the advisory agreement would be in our best interest. Similarly, because this distribution would still be due even if we terminate the advisory agreement for poor performance, our Advisor may be incentivized to focus its resources and attention on other matters or otherwise fail to use its best efforts on our behalf.

In addition, the requirement to pay the distribution to the special limited partner or its assignees at termination could cause us to make different investment or disposition decisions than we would otherwise make, in order to satisfy our obligation to pay the distribution to the special limited partner or its assignees. Moreover, our Advisor will have the right to terminate the advisory agreement upon a change of control of our company and thereby trigger the payment of the termination distribution, which could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing the change of control. In addition, our Advisor will be entitled to an annual subordinated performance fee such that for any year in which investors receive payment of a 6.0% annual cumulative, pre-tax, non-compounded return on the capital contributed by investors, our Advisor is entitled to 15.0% of the amount in excess of such 6.0% per annum return, provided that the amount paid to our Advisor does not exceed 10.0% of the aggregate return for such year, and that the amount, while accruing annually in each year the 6.0% return is attained, will not actually be paid to our Advisor unless investors receive a return of capital contributions, which could encourage our Advisor to recommend riskier or more speculative investments.

Risks Related to our Corporate Structure

We disclose funds from operations and modified funds from operations, each a non-GAAP financial measure, in communications with investors, including documents filed with the SEC; however, funds from operations and modified funds from operations are not equivalent to our net income or loss or cash flows from operations as determined under GAAP, and stockholders should consider GAAP measures to be more relevant to our operating performance.

We disclose to investors funds from operations ("FFO") and modified funds from operations ("MFFO"), which are non-GAAP financial measures. FFO and MFFO are not equivalent to our net income or loss or cash flows from operations as determined in accordance with GAAP, and investors should consider GAAP measures to be more relevant to evaluating our operating performance and ability to pay distributions.

Because of differences in calculating FFO and MFFO in comparison to GAAP net income, these measures may not be accurate indicators of our operating performance. In addition, FFO and MFFO are not indicative of cash flows available to fund cash needs and investors should not consider FFO and MFFO as alternatives to cash flows from operations or an indication of our liquidity, or indicative of funds available to fund our cash needs, including our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders. Neither the SEC nor any other regulatory body has passed judgment on the acceptability of the adjustments that we use to calculate FFO and MFFO. Also, because not all companies calculate FFO and MFFO the same way, comparisons with other companies may not be meaningful.

The limit on the number of shares a person may own may discourage a takeover that could otherwise result in a premium price to our stockholders.

Our charter, with certain exceptions, authorizes our directors to take such actions as are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Unless exempted (prospectively or retroactively) by our board of directors, no person may own more than 9.8% in value of the aggregate of our outstanding shares of capital stock or more than 9.8% (in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of any class or series of shares of our capital stock. This restriction may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us, including an extraordinary transaction (such as a merger, tender offer or sale of all or substantially all our assets) that might provide a premium price for holders of our common stock.

Our charter permits our board of directors to authorize the issuance of stock with terms that may subordinate the rights of common stockholders or discourage a third party from acquiring us in a manner that might result in a premium price to our stockholders.

Our charter permits our board of directors to authorize the issuance of up to 350.0 million shares of stock. In addition, our board of directors, without any action by our stockholders, may amend our charter from time to time to increase or decrease the aggregate number of shares or the number of shares of any class or series of stock that we have authority to issue. Our board of directors may classify or reclassify any unissued common stock or preferred stock into other classes or series of stock and establish the preferences, conversion or other rights, voting powers, restrictions, limitations as to dividends or other distributions, qualifications or terms or conditions of redemption of any such stock. Thus, our board of directors could authorize the issuance of preferred stock with terms and conditions that could have a priority as to distributions and amounts payable upon liquidation over the rights of the holders of our common stock. Preferred stock could also have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us, including an extraordinary transaction (such as a merger, tender offer or sale of all or substantially all our assets) that might provide a premium price for holders of our common stock.

Maryland law prohibits certain business combinations, which may make it more difficult for us to be acquired and may limit the ability of stockholders to exit the investment.

Under Maryland law, "business combinations" between a Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder or an affiliate of an interested stockholder are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. These business combinations include a merger, consolidation, share exchange or, in circumstances specified in the statute, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities. An interested stockholder is defined as:

A person is not an interested stockholder under the statute if the board of directors approved in advance the transaction by which he or she otherwise would have become an interested stockholder. However, in approving a transaction, the board of directors may provide that its approval is subject to compliance, at or after the time of approval, with any terms and conditions determined by the board of directors.

After the five-year prohibition, any business combination between the Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder generally must be recommended by the board of directors of the corporation and approved by the affirmative vote of at least:

These super-majority vote requirements do not apply if the corporation's common stockholders receive a minimum price, as defined under Maryland law, for their shares in the form of cash or other consideration in the same form as previously paid by the interested stockholder for its shares. The business combination statute permits various exemptions from its provisions, including business combinations that are exempted by the board of directors prior to the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. Pursuant to the statute, our board of directors has exempted any business combination involving our Advisor or any affiliate of our Advisor. Consequently, the five-year prohibition and the super-majority vote requirements will not apply to business combinations between us and our Advisor or any affiliate of our Advisor. As a result, our Advisor and any affiliate of our Advisor may be able to enter into business combinations with us that may not be in the best interests of our stockholders, without compliance with the super-majority vote requirements and the other provisions of the statute. The business combination statute may discourage others from trying to acquire control of us and increase the difficulty of consummating any offer.

Maryland law limits the ability of a third party to buy a large stake in us and exercise voting power in electing directors, which may discourage a takeover that could otherwise result in a premium price to our stockholders.

The Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act provides that holders of “control shares” of a Maryland corporation acquired in a “control share acquisition” have no voting rights except to the extent approved by the affirmative vote of at least stockholders entitled to cast two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast on the matter. Shares of stock owned by the acquirer, by officers or by employees who are directors of the corporation, are excluded from shares entitled to vote on the matter. “Control shares” are voting shares of stock which, if aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquirer or in respect of which the acquirer can exercise or direct the exercise of voting power (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy), would entitle the acquirer to exercise voting power in electing directors within specified ranges of voting power. Control shares do not include shares the acquiring person is then entitled to vote as a result of having previously obtained stockholder approval or shares acquired directly from the corporation. A “control share acquisition” means the acquisition of issued and outstanding control shares.

The control share acquisition statute does not apply (a) to shares acquired in a merger, consolidation or share exchange if the corporation is a party to the transaction, or (b) to acquisitions approved or exempted by the charter or bylaws of the corporation.

Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act any and all acquisitions of our stock by any person. There can be no assurance that this provision will not be amended or eliminated at any time in the future.

Stockholder returns may be reduced if we are required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

We are not registered, and do not intend to register ourself or any of our subsidiaries, as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. If we become obligated to register ourself or any of our subsidiaries as an investment company, we would have to comply with a variety of substantive requirements under the Investment Company Act imposing, among other things:

We conduct, and intend to continue conducting, our operations, directly and through wholly or majority-owned subsidiaries, so that we and each of our subsidiaries are not an investment company under the Investment Company Act. Under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act, a company is deemed to be an “investment company” if it is, or holds itself out as being, engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act, a company is deemed to be an “investment company” if it is engaged, or proposes to engage, in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and owns or proposes to acquire “investment securities” having a value exceeding 40% of the value of its total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. “Investment securities” excludes (A) government securities, (B) securities issued by employees’ securities companies, and (C) securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries which (i) are not investment companies and (ii) are not relying on the exception from the definition of investment company under Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act.

Because we are primarily engaged in the business of acquiring real estate, we believe that we and most, if not all, of our wholly and majority-owned subsidiaries will not be considered investment companies under either Section 3(a)(1)(A) or Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act. If we or any of our wholly or majority-owned subsidiaries would ever inadvertently fall within one of the definitions of “investment company,” we intend to rely on the exception provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act.

Under Section 3(c)(5)(C), the SEC staff generally requires us to maintain at least 55% of our assets directly in qualifying assets and at least 80% of the entity’s assets in qualifying assets and in a broader category of real estate-related assets to qualify for this exception. Mortgage-related securities may or may not constitute such qualifying assets, depending on the characteristics of the mortgage-related securities, including the rights that we have with respect to the underlying loans. Our ownership of mortgage-related securities, therefore, is limited by provisions of the Investment Company Act and SEC staff interpretations.

The method we use to classify our assets for purposes of the Investment Company Act is based in large measure upon no-action positions taken by the SEC staff in the past. These no-action positions were issued in accordance with factual situations that may be substantially different from the factual situations we may face, and a number of these no-action positions were issued more than twenty years ago. No assurance can be given that the SEC staff will concur with our classification of our assets. In addition, the SEC staff may, in the future, issue further guidance that may require us to re-classify our assets for purposes of qualifying for an exclusion from regulation under the Investment Company Act. If we are required to re-classify our assets, we may no longer be in compliance with the exclusion from the definition of an “investment company” provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act.

A change in the value of any of our assets could cause us or one or more of our wholly or majority-owned subsidiaries to fall within the definition of “investment company” and negatively affect our ability to maintain our exclusion from regulation under the Investment Company Act. To avoid being required to register ourself or any of our subsidiaries as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we may be unable to sell assets we would otherwise want to sell and may need to sell assets we would otherwise wish to retain. In addition, we may have to acquire additional income- or loss-generating assets that we might not otherwise have acquired or may have to forgo opportunities to acquire interests in companies that we would otherwise want to acquire and would be important to our investment strategy.

If we were required to register ourself as an investment company but failed to do so, we would be prohibited from engaging in our business, and civil actions could be brought against us. In addition, our contracts would be unenforceable unless a court required enforcement, and a court could appoint a receiver to take control of us and liquidate our business.

Rapid changes in the values of potential investments in real estate-related investments may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or our exception from the Investment Company Act.

If the market value or income generated by our real estate-related investments declines, including as a result of increased interest rates, prepayment rates or other factors, we may need to increase our real estate investments and income or liquidate our non-qualifying assets in order to maintain our REIT qualification or our exception from registration under the Investment Company Act. If the decline in real estate asset values or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish. This difficulty may be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of any non-real estate assets that we may own. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent REIT and Investment Company Act considerations.

We are an "emerging growth company" under the federal securities laws and will be subject to reduced public company reporting requirements.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act of 2012, and are eligible to take advantage of certain exemptions from, or reduced disclosure obligations relating to, various reporting requirements that are normally applicable to public companies.

We will remain an “emerging growth company” for up to five years, or until the earliest of (1) the last day of the first fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of $1 billion or more, (2) December 31 of the fiscal year that we become a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act (which would occur if the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million, measured as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, and we have been publicly reporting for at least 12 months) or (3) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the preceding three-year period.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies are not required to (1) provide an auditor’s attestation report on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (2) comply with any new requirements adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB") that require mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report in which the auditor must provide additional information about the audit and the issuer’s financial statements, (3) comply with new audit rules adopted by the PCAOB after April 5, 2012 (unless the SEC determines otherwise), (4) provide certain disclosures relating to executive compensation generally required for larger public companies, or (5) hold stockholder advisory votes on executive compensation. Although we have not yet made a decision as to whether to take advantage of all of the JOBS Act exemptions that are applicable to us, we have taken advantage of certain applicable exemptions. We do not know if some investors will find our common stock less attractive if we continue to take advantage of certain JOBS Act exemptions or take advantage of additional exemptions in the future.

Additionally, the JOBS Act provides that an “emerging growth company” may take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies. This means that an “emerging growth company” can delay adopting certain accounting standards until such standards are otherwise applicable to private companies. However, we have elected to “opt out” of such extended transition period, and will therefore comply with new or revised accounting standards on the applicable dates on which the adoption of such standards is required for non-emerging growth companies. Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that our decision to opt out of such extended transition period for compliance with new or revised accounting standards is irrevocable.

If our stockholders do not agree with the decisions of our board of directors, our stockholders only have limited control over changes in our policies and operations and may not be able to change our policies and operations.

Our board of directors determines our major policies, including our policies regarding investments, financing, growth, debt capitalization, REIT qualification and distributions. Our board of directors may amend or revise these and other policies without a vote of the stockholders except to the extent that the policies are set forth in our charter. Under Maryland General Corporation Law and our charter, our stockholders have a right to vote only on the following:

All other matters are subject to the discretion of our board of directors.

Our board of directors may change our investment policies without stockholder approval, which could alter the nature of a stockholder's investment.

Our charter requires that our independent directors review our investment policies at least annually to determine that the policies we are following are in the best interests of the stockholders. These policies may change over time. The methods of implementing our investment policies also may vary, as new real estate development trends emerge and new investment techniques are developed. Our investment policies, the methods for their implementation, and our other objectives, policies and procedures may be altered by our board of directors without the approval of our stockholders. As a result, the nature of a stockholder's investment could change without his or her consent.

Stockholders are limited in their ability to sell their shares pursuant to our share repurchase program and may have to hold shares for an indefinite period of time.

Our board of directors may amend the terms of our share repurchase program without stockholder approval. Our board of directors also is free to amend, suspend or terminate the program upon 30 days’ notice or to reject any request for repurchase. In addition, the SRP includes numerous restrictions that would limit stockholders' ability to sell their shares. Generally, a stockholder must have held his or her shares for at least one year in order to participate in our SRP. Subject to funds being available, the purchase price for shares repurchased under our SRP will be as set forth below.

Unless such repurchase is in connection with a stockholder’s death or disability, prior to establishing the estimated NAV, the price per share that we will pay to repurchase shares of our common stock will be as follows: (a) for stockholders who have continuously held their shares of our common stock for at least one year and less than two years, the price will be 92.5% of the amount paid for each such share, (b) for stockholders who have continuously held their shares of our common stock for at least two years and less than three years, the price will be 95.0% of the amount paid for each such share, (c) for stockholders who have continuously held their shares of our common stock for at least three years and less than four years, the price will be 97.5% of the amount paid for each such share, and (d) for stockholders who have held their shares of our common stock for a period greater than four years, the price will be 100.0% of the amount a stockholder paid for each share (in each case, as adjusted for any stock dividends, combinations, splits, recapitalizations and the like with respect to our common stock).

On and after establishing the estimated NAV, unless such repurchase is in connection with a stockholder's death or disability, the repurchase price per share that we will pay to repurchase shares of our common stock will be as follows: the estimated per share NAV in each case multiplied by a percentage equal to (a) 92.5% for stockholders who have continuously held their shares of our common stock for at least one year and less than two years; (b) 95% for stockholders who have continuously held their shares of our common stock for at least two years and less than three years; (c) 97.5% for stockholders who have continuously held their shares of our common stock for at least three years and less than four years; and (d) 100% for stockholders who have continuously held their shares of our common stock for a period greater than four years (in each case, as adjusted for any stock dividends, combinations, splits, recapitalizations and the like with respect to our common stock).

During the quarter ended December 31, 2015, our board of directors authorized, with respect to redemption requests received during that quarter, the repurchase of shares validly submitted for repurchase in an amount equal to 1.0% of the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, representing less than all the shares validly submitted for repurchase during the quarter ended December 31, 2015, but including all shares submitted for death or disability.

Following the SRP amendment (as discussed in Part II —Item 5, under the heading "Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers"), we will limit the number of shares repurchased during any fiscal semester to a maximum of 2.5% of the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the previous fiscal year, with a maximum for any fiscal year of 5% of the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding on December 31st of the previous fiscal year. Funding for repurchases pursuant to our share repurchase program is limited to proceeds received during that same fiscal semester from the DRIP; provided that our board of directors has the power, in its sole discretion, to determine the amount of shares repurchased during any fiscal semester as well as the amount of funds used for that purpose. These limits might prevent us from accommodating all repurchase requests made in any year. There is no assurance that our SRP, as amended, will not be further limited or amended.

Stockholders may be diluted if the price we pay in respect of shares repurchased under our share repurchase program exceeds the NAV of our shares.

The prices we may pay for shares repurchased under our share repurchase program may exceed the NAV of the shares at the time of repurchase, which may reduce the NAV of the remaining shares. In addition, if we issue shares under the DRIP at a price that exceeds the NAV of the shares at the time of issuance, the NAV of our remaining shares will be reduced.

Stockholders will suffer dilution if we issue additional shares, which could adversely affect the value of one's shares.

Our existing stockholders do not have preemptive rights to any shares issued by us in the future. Our charter currently authorizes us to issue 350.0 million shares of stock, of which 300.0 million shares are classified as common stock and 50.0 million shares are classified as preferred stock. Our board of directors may amend our charter from time to time to increase or decrease the aggregate number of authorized shares of stock or the number of authorized shares of any class or series of stock, or may classify or reclassify any unissued shares into other classes or series of stock without the necessity of obtaining stockholder approval. All such shares may be issued in the discretion of our board of directors, except that the issuance of preferred stock must be approved by a majority of our independent directors not otherwise interested in the transaction, who will have access, at our expense, to our legal counsel or to independent legal counsel. Holders of our common stock are not entitled to preemptive rights or other protections against dilution. Stockholders will suffer dilution (both economic and percentage interest) of their equity investment in us, (a) from the sale of additional shares in the future, including those issued pursuant to the DRIP; (b) if we sell securities that are convertible into shares of our common stock; (c) if we issue shares of our common stock in a private offering of securities to institutional investors; (d) if we issue restricted share awards to our directors; (e) if we issue shares to our Advisor or its affiliates, successors or assigns, in payment of an outstanding fee obligation as set forth under our advisory agreement and other agreements; or (f) if we issue shares of our common stock to sellers of properties acquired by us in connection with an exchange of limited partnership interests of our OP. In addition, the partnership agreement contains provisions that would allow, under certain circumstances, other entities, including other AR Global-sponsored programs, to merge into or cause the exchange or conversion of their interest for interests of our OP. Because the limited partnership interests may, in the discretion of our board of directors, be exchanged for shares of our common stock, any merger, exchange or conversion between our OP and another entity ultimately could result in the issuance of a substantial number of shares of our common stock, thereby diluting the percentage ownership interest of other stockholders.

Future offerings of equity securities which are senior to our common stock for purposes of dividend distributions or upon liquidation, may adversely affect the per share trading price of the value of our common stock.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making additional offerings of equity securities. Under our charter, we may issue, without stockholder approval, preferred stock or other classes of common stock with rights that could dilute the value of our stockholders' shares of common stock. Any issuance of preferred stock must be approved by a majority of our independent directors not otherwise interested in the transaction. Upon liquidation, holders of our shares of preferred stock will be entitled to receive our available assets prior to distribution to the holders of our common stock. Additionally, any convertible, exercisable or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock and may result in dilution to owners of our common stock. Holders of our common stock are not entitled to preemptive rights or other protections against dilution.

Our preferred stock, if issued, could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend payments that could limit our ability pay dividends to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, our stockholders bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the value of our common stock.

Payment of fees to our Advisor and its affiliates reduces cash available for investment and distributions to stockholders.

Our Advisor and its affiliates perform various services for us and are paid fees for these services which are substantial. Payment of these fees reduces the amount of cash available for investment in properties or distribution to stockholders.

We depend on our operating partnership and its subsidiaries for cash flow and we are structurally subordinated in right of payment to the obligations of the operating partnership and its subsidiaries, which could adversely affect, among other things, our ability to make distributions to stockholders.

Our only significant assets are and will be the general and limited partnership interests in our operating partnership. We conduct, and intend to conduct, all of our business operations through our operating partnership. Accordingly, our only source of cash to pay our obligations will be distributions from our operating partnership and its subsidiaries of their net earnings and cash flows. There is no assurance that our operating partnership or its subsidiaries will be able to, or be permitted to, make distributions to us that will enable us to make distributions to our stockholders from cash flows from operations. Each of our operating partnership’s subsidiaries will be a distinct legal entity and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from such entities. In addition, stockholder's claims will be structurally subordinated to all existing and future liabilities and obligations of our operating partnership and its subsidiaries. Therefore, in the event of our bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization, our assets and those of our operating partnership and its subsidiaries will be able to satisfy stockholders' claims only after all liabilities and obligations of us and our operating partnership and its subsidiaries have been paid in full.

General Risks Related to Investments in Real Estate

Our operating results will be affected by economic and regulatory changes that have an adverse impact on the real estate market in general, and we cannot assure our stockholders that we will be profitable or that we will realize growth in the value of our real estate properties.

Our operating results are subject to risks generally incident to the ownership of real estate, including:

These and other risks may prevent us from being profitable or from realizing growth or maintaining the value of our real estate properties.

Our property portfolio has a high concentration of properties located in seven states. Our properties may be adversely affected by economic cycles and risks inherent to those states.

As of December 31, 2015 , the following seven states represented 5% or more of our consolidated annualized rental income on a straight-line basis for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015:

State		Percentage of Straight-Line Rental Income
Arkansas		5.5%
Florida		18.6%
Georgia		9.3%
Iowa		10.1%
Michigan		6.6%
Missouri		5.2%
Pennsylvania		11.4%

Any adverse situation that disproportionately affects the states listed above may have a magnified adverse effect on our portfolio. Real estate markets are subject to economic downturns, as they have been in the past, and we cannot predict how economic conditions will impact this market in both the short and long term. Declines in the economy or a decline in the real estate market in these states could hurt our financial performance and the value of our properties. Factors that may negatively affect economic conditions in these states include:

If a tenant declares bankruptcy, we may be unable to collect balances due under the relevant lease, which could adversely affect our financial condition and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Any of our tenants, or any guarantor of a tenant's lease obligations, could be subject to a bankruptcy proceeding pursuant to Title 11 of the bankruptcy laws of the United States. Such a bankruptcy filing would bar all efforts by us to collect pre-bankruptcy debts from these entities or their properties, unless we receive an enabling order from the bankruptcy court. Post-bankruptcy debts would be paid currently. If a lease is assumed, all pre-bankruptcy balances owing under it must be paid in full. If a lease is rejected by a tenant in bankruptcy, we would have a general unsecured claim for damages. If a lease is rejected, it is unlikely we would receive any payments from the tenant because our claim is capped at the rent reserved under the lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year or 15% of the remaining term of the lease, but not greater than three years, plus rent already due but unpaid. This claim could be paid only if funds were available, and then only in the same percentage as that realized on other unsecured claims.

A tenant or lease guarantor bankruptcy could delay efforts to collect past due balances under the relevant leases, and could ultimately preclude full collection of these sums. Such an event could cause a decrease or cessation of rental payments, which could adversely affect our financial condition and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders. In the event of a bankruptcy, we cannot assure our stockholders that the tenant or its trustee will assume our lease. If a given lease, or guaranty of a lease, is not assumed, our cash flow and the amounts available for distributions to our stockholders may be adversely affected.

If a sale-leaseback transaction is re-characterized in a tenant's bankruptcy proceeding, our financial condition and ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected.

We may enter into sale-leaseback transactions, whereby we would purchase a property and then lease the same property back to the person from whom we purchased it. In the event of the bankruptcy of a tenant, a transaction structured as a sale-leaseback may be re-characterized as either a financing or a joint venture, either of which outcomes could adversely affect our business. If the sale-leaseback were re-characterized as a financing, we might not be considered the owner of the property, and as a result would have the status of a creditor in relation to the tenant. In that event, we would no longer have the right to sell or encumber our ownership interest in the property. Instead, we would have a claim against the tenant for the amounts owed under the lease, with the claim arguably secured by the property. The tenant/debtor might have the ability to propose a plan restructuring the term, interest rate and amortization schedule of its outstanding balance. If confirmed by the bankruptcy court, we could be bound by the new terms, and prevented from foreclosing our lien on the property. If the sale-leaseback were re-characterized as a joint venture, our lessee and we could be treated as co-venturers with regard to the property. As a result, we could be held liable, under some circumstances, for debts incurred by the lessee relating to the property. Either of these outcomes could adversely affect our cash flow and the amount available for distributions to our stockholders.

Recharacterization of sale-leaseback transactions may cause us to lose our REIT status.

If we enter into sale-leaseback transactions, we will use commercially reasonable efforts to structure any such sale-leaseback transaction such that the lease will be characterized as a "true lease" for tax purposes, thereby allowing us to be treated as the owner of the property for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, the IRS may challenge such characterization. In the event that any such sale-leaseback transaction is challenged and recharacterized as a financing transaction or loan for U.S. federal income tax purposes, deductions for depreciation and cost recovery relating to such property would be disallowed. If a sale-leaseback transaction were so recharacterized, we might fail to satisfy the REIT qualification "asset tests" or "income tests" and, consequently, lose our REIT status effective with the year of recharacterization. Alternatively, the amount of our REIT taxable income could be recalculated, which might also cause us to fail to meet the distribution requirement for a taxable year.

Properties that have vacancies for a significant period of time could be difficult to sell, which could diminish the return on a stockholder's investment in our shares.

A property may incur vacancies either by the continued default of tenants under their leases or the expiration of tenant leases. If vacancies continue for a long period of time, we may suffer reduced revenues resulting in less cash to be distributed to stockholders. In addition, properties' market values depend principally upon the value of the cash flow generated by the properties. Prolonged vacancies reduce this cash flow which would likely, therefore, reduce the value of the affected property.

We may obtain only limited warranties when we purchase a property and would have only limited recourse if our due diligence did not identify any issues that lower the value of the applicable property.

The seller of a property often sells such property in its "as is" condition on a "where is" basis and "with all faults," without any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular use or purpose. In addition, purchase agreements may contain only limited warranties, representations and indemnifications that will only survive for a limited period after the closing. The purchase of properties with limited warranties increases the risk that we may lose some or all our invested capital in the property as well as the loss of rental income from that property.

We may be unable to secure funds for future tenant improvements or capital needs.

To attract new replacement tenants, or in some cases secure renewal of a lease, we may expend substantial funds for tenant improvements and refurbishments. In addition, we are typically responsible for any major structural repairs, such as repairs to the foundation, exterior walls and rooftops, even if our leases with tenants may require tenants to pay routine property maintenance costs. We may not reserve sufficient gross proceeds from our IPO to fund future capital needs. Accordingly, if we need additional capital in the future to improve or maintain our properties or for any other reason, we will have to obtain financing from other sources, such as cash flow from operations, borrowings, property sales or future equity offerings. These sources of funding may not be available on attractive terms or at all. If we cannot procure additional funding for capital improvements, we may not be able to lease or re-lease space on attractive terms, if at all.

We may not be able to sell our properties at a price equal to, or greater than, the price for which we purchased such property, which may lead to a decrease in the value of our assets.

Some of our leases may not contain rental increases over time. Therefore, the value of the property to a potential purchaser may not increase over time, which may restrict our ability to sell a property, or if we are able to sell such property, may lead to a sale price less than the price that we paid to purchase the property.

We may acquire or finance properties with lock-out provisions, which may prohibit us from selling a property, or may require us to maintain specified debt levels for a period of years on some properties.

Lock-out provisions could materially restrict us from selling or otherwise disposing of or refinancing properties. These provisions would affect our ability to sell our investments. Lock-out provisions may prohibit us from reducing the outstanding indebtedness secured by the applicable property, refinancing such indebtedness on a non-recourse basis at maturity, or increasing the amount of indebtedness with respect to such properties. Lock-out provisions could impair our ability to take other actions during the lock-out period that could be in our best interests, such as precluding us from participating in major transactions that could result in a disposition of our assets or a change in control even though that disposition or change in control might be in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders.

Rising expenses could reduce cash flow and funds available for future acquisitions.

Any properties that we own or acquire are or will be subject to operating risks common to real estate in general, any or all of which may negatively affect us. If any property is not fully occupied or if rents are being paid in an amount that is insufficient to cover operating expenses, we could be required to expend funds with respect to that property for operating expenses. We may also experience increases in tax rates, utility costs, operating expenses, insurance costs, repairs and maintenance and administrative expenses. Leases may not be negotiated on a triple-net basis or on a basis requiring the tenants to pay all or some of such expenses, in which event we may have to pay those costs. If we are unable to lease properties on a triple-net-lease basis or on a basis requiring the tenants to pay all or some of such expenses, or if tenants fail to pay required tax, utility and other impositions, we could be required to pay those costs.

We may incur uninsured losses relating to real property or excessively expensive premiums for insurance coverage, due to the non-renewal of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 ("TRIA"), could reduce our cash flows and the return on our stockholders' investments.

There are types of losses, generally catastrophic in nature, such as losses due to wars, acts of terrorism, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, pollution or environmental matters, that are uninsurable or not economically insurable, or may be insured subject to limitations, such as large deductibles or co-payments. Insurance risks associated with such catastrophic events could sharply increase the premiums we pay for coverage against property and casualty claims.

This risk is particularly relevant with respect to potential acts of terrorism. The TRIA, under which the U.S. federal government bears a significant portion of insured losses caused by terrorism, will expire on December 31, 2020, and there can be no assurance that Congress will act to renew or replace the TRIA following its expiration. In the event the TRIA is not renewed or replaced, terrorism insurance may become difficult or impossible to obtain at reasonable costs or at all, which may result in adverse impacts and additional costs to us.

Changes in the cost or availability of insurance due to the non-renewal of the TRIA or for other reasons could expose us to uninsured casualty losses. If any of our properties incurs a casualty loss that is not fully insured, the value of our assets will be reduced by any such uninsured loss, which may reduce the value of an investment in our shares. In addition, other than any working capital reserve or other reserves we may establish, we have no source of funding to repair or reconstruct any uninsured property. Also, to the extent we must pay unexpectedly large amounts for insurance, we could suffer reduced earnings that would result in lower distributions to stockholders.

Additionally, mortgage lenders insist in some cases that commercial property owners purchase coverage against terrorism as a condition for providing mortgage loans. Accordingly, to the extent terrorism risk insurance policies are not available at reasonable costs, if at all, our ability to finance or refinance our properties could be impaired. In such instances, we may be required to provide other financial support, either through financial assurances or self-insurance, to cover potential losses. We may not have adequate, or any, coverage for such losses.

Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence, civilian unrest or war may affect the markets in which we operate and our business.

We may acquire real estate assets located in areas throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico in major metropolitan areas as well as densely populated sub-markets that are susceptible to terrorist attack. In addition, any kind of terrorist activity or violent criminal acts, including terrorist acts against public institutions or buildings or modes of public transportation (including airlines, trains or buses) could have a negative effect on our business. More generally, any terrorist attack, other act of violence or war, including armed conflicts, could result in increased volatility in, or damage to, the worldwide financial markets and economy.

Real estate-related taxes may increase and if these increases are not passed on to tenants, our income will be reduced.

From time to time our property taxes increase as property values or assessment rates change or for other reasons. An increase in the assessed valuation of a property for real estate tax purposes will result in an increase in the related real estate taxes on that property. There is no assurance that leases will be negotiated on a basis that passes such taxes on to the tenant.

Properties may be subject to restrictions on their use that affect our ability to operate a property, which may adversely affect our operating costs.

Some of our properties may be contiguous to other parcels of real property, comprising part of the same commercial center. In connection with such properties, there are significant covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&Rs") restricting the operation of such properties and any improvements on such properties, and related to granting easements on such properties. Moreover, the operation and management of the contiguous properties may impact such properties. Compliance with CC&Rs may adversely affect our operating costs and reduce the amount of funds that we have available to pay distributions.

Our operating results may be negatively affected by potential development and construction delays and resultant increased costs and risks.

We may acquire and develop properties upon which we will construct improvements. We will be subject to uncertainties associated with re-zoning for development, environmental concerns of governmental entities and/or community groups, and our builder's ability to build in conformity with plans, specifications, budgeted costs, and timetables. If a builder fails to perform, we may resort to legal action to rescind the purchase or the construction contract or to compel performance. A builder's performance also may be affected or delayed by conditions beyond the builder's control. Delays in completion of construction could also give tenants the right to terminate preconstruction leases. We may incur additional risks when we make periodic progress payments or other advances to builders before they complete construction. These and other factors can result in increased costs of a project or loss of our investment. In addition, we will be subject to normal lease-up risks relating to newly constructed projects. We also must rely on rental income and expense projections and estimates of the fair market value of property upon completion of construction when agreeing upon a price at the time we acquire the property. If our projections are inaccurate, we may pay too much for a property, and our return on our investment could suffer.

We may invest in unimproved real property. For purposes of this paragraph, "unimproved real property" does not include properties acquired for the purpose of producing rental or other operating income, properties under development or construction, and properties under contract for development or in planning for development within one year. Returns from development of unimproved properties are also subject to risks associated with re-zoning the land for development and environmental concerns of governmental entities and/or community groups. If we invest in unimproved property other than property we intend to develop, a stockholder's investment in our shares will be subject to the risks associated with investments in unimproved real property.

We compete with third parties in acquiring properties and other investments and attracting creditworthy tenants.

We compete with many other entities engaged in real estate investment activities, including individuals, corporations, bank and insurance company investment accounts, other REITs, real estate limited partnerships, and other entities engaged in real estate investment activities, many of which have greater resources than we do. Larger REITs may enjoy significant competitive advantages that result from, among other things, a lower cost of capital and enhanced operating efficiencies. In addition, the number of entities and the amount of funds competing for suitable investments may increase. Any such increase would result in increased demand for these assets and therefore increased prices paid for them.

We also compete with other comparable properties for tenants, which impacts our ability to rent space and the amount of rent charged. We could be adversely affected if additional competitive properties are built in locations near our properties, causing increased competition for creditworthy tenants. This could result in decreased cash flow from our properties and may require us to make capital improvements to properties that we would not have otherwise made, further impacting property cash flows.

Discovery of previously undetected environmentally hazardous conditions may adversely affect our operating results.

We are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations that (a) regulate certain activities and operations that may have environmental or health and safety effects, such as the management, generation, release or disposal of regulated materials, substances or wastes, (b) impose liability for the costs of cleaning up, and damages to natural resources from, past spills, waste disposals on and off-site, or other releases of hazardous materials or regulated substances, and (c) regulate workplace safety. Compliance with these laws and regulations could increase our operational costs. Violation of these laws may subject us to significant fines, penalties or disposal costs, which could negatively impact our results of operations, financial position and cash flows. Under various federal, state and local environmental laws (including those of foreign jurisdictions), a current or previous owner or operator of currently or formerly owned, leased or operated real property may be liable for the cost of removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances on, under or in such property. The costs of removal or remediation could be substantial. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. Certain environmental laws and common law principles could be used to impose liability for release of and exposure to hazardous substances, including asbestos-containing materials into the air, and third parties may seek recovery from owners or operators of real properties for personal injury or property damage associated with exposure to released hazardous substances. In addition, when excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Concern about indoor exposure to mold has been increasing, as exposure to mold may cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. As a result, the presence of significant mold at any of our properties could require us to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold from the affected property or development project.

Accordingly, we may incur significant costs to defend against claims of liability, to comply with environmental regulatory requirements, to remediate any contaminated property, or to pay personal injury claims.

Moreover, environmental laws also may impose liens on property or other restrictions on the manner in which property may be used or businesses may be operated, and these restrictions may require substantial expenditures or prevent us or our Property Manager and its assignees from operating such properties. Compliance with new or more stringent laws or regulations or stricter interpretation of existing laws may require us to incur material expenditures. Future laws, ordinances or regulations or the discovery of currently unknown conditions or non-compliances may impose material liability under environmental laws.

If we sell properties by providing financing to purchasers, defaults by the purchasers would adversely affect our cash flows.

If we decide to sell any of our properties, in some instances we may sell our properties by providing financing to purchasers. If we do so, we will bear the risk that the purchaser may default on its debt, requiring us to seek remedies, a process which may be time-consuming and costly. Further, the borrower may have defenses that could limit or eliminate our remedies. In addition, even in the absence of a purchaser default, the distribution of the proceeds of sales to our stockholders, or their reinvestment in other assets, will be delayed until the promissory notes or other property we may accept upon the sale are actually paid, sold, refinanced or otherwise disposed of. In some cases, we may receive initial down payments in cash and other property in the year of sale in an amount less than the selling price and subsequent payments will be spread over a number of years.

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

We may enter into joint ventures, partnerships and other co-ownership arrangements (including preferred equity investments) for the purpose of making investments. In such event, we may not be in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the joint venture. Investments in joint ventures may, under certain circumstances, involve risks not present were a third party not involved, including the possibility that partners or co-venturers might become bankrupt or fail to fund their required capital contributions. Co-venturers may have economic or other business interests or goals which are inconsistent with our business interests or goals, and may be in a position to take actions contrary to our policies or objectives. Such investments may also have the potential risk of impasses on decisions, such as a sale, because neither we nor the co-venturer would have full control over the joint venture. Disputes between us and co-venturers may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent our officers and/or directors from focusing their time and effort on our business. Consequently, actions by or disputes with co-venturers might result in subjecting properties owned by the joint venture to additional risk. In addition, we may in certain circumstances be liable for the actions of our co-venturers.

Our costs associated with complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act may affect cash available for distributions.

Our properties are and will be subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "Disabilities Act"). Under the Disabilities Act, all places of public accommodation are required to comply with federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. The Disabilities Act has separate compliance requirements for "public accommodations" and "commercial facilities" that generally require that buildings and services, including restaurants and retail stores, be made accessible and available to people with disabilities. The Disabilities Act's requirements could require removal of access barriers and could result in the imposition of injunctive relief, monetary penalties, or, in some cases, an award of damages. There is no assurance that we will be able to acquire properties or allocate the burden on the seller or other third party, such as a tenant, to ensure compliance with the Disabilities Act. If we cannot, our funds used for Disabilities Act compliance may affect cash available for distributions and the amount of distributions paid to our stockholders.

Net leases may not result in fair market lease rates over time.

Some of our rental income is generated by net leases, which generally provide the tenant greater discretion in using the leased property than ordinary property leases, such as the right to freely sublease the property, to make alterations in the leased premises and to terminate the lease prior to its expiration under specified circumstances. Furthermore, net leases typically have longer lease terms and, thus, there is an increased risk that contractual rental increases in future years will fail to result in fair market rental rates during those years.

We may be unable to renew leases or re-lease space as leases expire.

We may be unable to renew expiring leases on terms and conditions that are as, or more, favorable as the terms and conditions of the expiring leases. In addition, vacancies may occur at one or more of our properties due to a default by a tenant on its lease or expiration of a lease. Healthcare facilities in general and MOBs in particular tend to be specifically suited for the particular needs of their tenants and major renovations and expenditures may be required in order for us to re-lease vacant space. Vacancies may reduce the value of a property as a result of reduced cash flow generated by the property.

Our properties may be subject to impairment charges.

We periodically evaluate our real estate investments for impairment indicators. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based on factors such as market conditions, tenant performance and legal structure. For example, the early termination of, or default under, a lease by a major tenant may lead to an impairment charge. If we determine that an impairment has occurred, we would be required to make a downward adjustment to the net carrying value of the property. Impairment charges also indicate a potential permanent adverse change in the fundamental operating characteristics of the impaired property. There is no assurance that these adverse changes will be reversed in the future and the decline in the impaired property's value could be permanent.

Our real estate investments are relatively illiquid, and therefore we may not be able to dispose of properties when appropriate or on favorable terms.

Investments in real properties are relatively illiquid. We may not be able to quickly alter our portfolio or generate capital by selling properties. The real estate market is affected by many factors, such as general economic conditions, availability of financing, interest rates and other factors, including supply and demand, that are beyond our control. If we need or desire to sell a property or properties, we cannot predict whether we will be able to do so at a price or on the terms and conditions acceptable to us. We cannot predict the length of time needed to find a willing purchaser and to close the sale of a property. Further, we may be required to invest monies to correct defects or to make improvements before a property can be sold. We can make no assurance that we will have funds available to correct these defects or to make these improvements. Moreover, in acquiring a property, we may agree to restrictions that prohibit the sale of that property for a period of time or impose other restrictions, such as a limitation on the amount of debt that can be placed or repaid on that property. These provisions would restrict our ability to sell a property.

In addition, applicable provisions of the Code impose restrictions on the ability of a REIT to dispose of properties that are not applicable to other types of real estate companies. Thus, we may be unable to realize our investment objectives by selling or otherwise disposing of or refinancing a property at attractive prices within any given period of time or may otherwise be unable to complete any exit strategy.

Potential changes in U.S. accounting standards regarding operating leases may make the leasing of our properties less attractive to our potential tenants, which could reduce overall demand for our leasing services.

Under current authoritative accounting guidance for leases, a lease is classified by a tenant as a capital lease if the significant risks and rewards of ownership are considered to reside with the tenant. Under capital lease accounting for a tenant, both the leased asset and liability are reflected on their balance sheet. If the lease does not meet any of the criteria for a capital lease, the lease is considered an operating lease by the tenant, and the obligation does not appear on the tenant’s balance sheet; rather, the contractual future minimum payment obligations are only disclosed in the footnotes thereto. Thus, entering into an operating lease can appear to enhance a tenant’s balance sheet in comparison to direct ownership. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (the "FASB") and the International Accounting Standards Board (the "IASB") conducted a joint project to reevaluate lease accounting. In June 2013, the FASB and the IASB jointly finalized exposure drafts of a proposed accounting model that would significantly change lease accounting. In March 2014, the FASB and the IASB deliberated aspects of the joint project, including the lessee and lessor accounting models, lease term, and exemptions and simplifications. The final standards were released in February 2016 and will become effective for us in 2019. We are currently evaluating the impact of this new guidance. Changes to the accounting guidance could affect both our accounting for leases as well as that of our current and potential tenants. These changes may affect how the real estate leasing business is conducted. For example, if the accounting standards regarding the financial statement classification of operating leases are revised, then companies may be less willing to enter into leases in general or desire to enter into leases with shorter terms because the apparent benefits to their balance sheets could be reduced or eliminated. This in turn could cause a delay in investing our offering proceeds and make it more difficult for us to enter into leases on terms we find favorable.

Healthcare Industry Risks

Our real estate investments are concentrated in MOBs, seniors housing communities and other healthcare-related facilities, making us more vulnerable economically than if our investments were less focused on healthcare-related assets.

We own and seek to acquire a diversified portfolio of healthcare-related assets including MOBs, seniors housing communities and other healthcare-related facilities. We are subject to risks inherent in concentrating investments in real estate and, in particular, healthcare-related assets. A downturn in the commercial real estate industry generally could significantly adversely affect the value of our properties. A downturn in the healthcare industry could particularly negatively affect our lessees' ability to make lease payments to us and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. These adverse effects could be more pronounced than if we diversified our investments outside of real estate or if our portfolio did not include a concentration in healthcare-related assets.

Certain of our properties may not have efficient alternative uses, so the loss of a tenant may cause us to not be able to find a replacement or cause us to spend considerable capital to adapt the property to an alternative use.

Some of our properties and the properties we will seek to acquire are healthcare-related assets that may only be suitable for similar healthcare-related tenants. If we or our tenants terminate the leases for these properties or our tenants lose their regulatory authority to operate such properties, we may not be able to locate suitable replacement tenants to lease the properties for their specialized uses. Alternatively, we may be required to spend substantial amounts to adapt the properties to other uses.

Our properties and tenants may be unable to compete successfully.

The properties we have acquired and will acquire may face competition from nearby hospitals and other medical facilities that provide comparable services. Some of those competing facilities are owned by governmental agencies and supported by tax revenues, and others are owned by nonprofit corporations and may be supported to a large extent by endowments and charitable contributions. These types of support are not available to our properties. Similarly, our tenants face competition from other medical practices in nearby hospitals and other medical facilities. Our tenants' failure to compete successfully with these other practices could adversely affect their ability to make rental payments, which could adversely affect our rental revenues.

Further, from time to time and for reasons beyond our control, referral sources, including physicians and managed care organizations, may change their lists of hospitals or physicians to which they refer patients. This could adversely affect our tenants' ability to make rental payments, which could adversely affect our rental revenues.

Reductions or changes in reimbursement from third-party payors, including Medicare and Medicaid, could adversely affect the profitability of our tenants and hinder their ability to make rent payments to us.

Sources of revenue for our tenants may include the federal Medicare program, state Medicaid programs, private insurance carriers and health maintenance organizations, among others. Efforts by such payors to reduce healthcare costs have intensified in recent years and will likely continue, which may result in reductions or slower growth in reimbursement for certain services provided by some of our tenants. In addition, the failure of any of our tenants to comply with various laws and regulations could jeopardize their ability to continue participating in Medicare, Medicaid and other government-sponsored payment programs. The healthcare industry continues to face various challenges, including increased government and private payor pressure on healthcare providers to control or reduce costs. Our tenants may continue to experience a shift in payor mix away from fee-for-service payors, resulting in an increase in the percentage of revenues attributable to managed care payors, and general industry trends that include pressures to control healthcare costs. In addition, some of our tenants may be subject to value-based purchasing programs, which base reimbursement on the quality and efficiency of care provided by facilities and require the public reporting of quality data and preventable adverse events to receive full reimbursement. Pressures to control healthcare costs and a shift away from traditional health insurance reimbursement to managed care plans have resulted in an increase in the number of patients whose healthcare coverage is provided under managed care plans, such as health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations. These changes could have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of some or all of our tenants in our properties. The financial impact on our tenants could restrict their ability to make rent payments to us.

A reduction in Medicare payment rates for skilled nursing facilities may have an adverse effect on the Medicare reimbursements received by certain of our tenants.

Several government initiatives have resulted in reductions in funding of the Medicare and Medicaid programs and additional changes in reimbursement regulations by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"), contributing to enhanced pressure to contain healthcare costs and additional operational requirements, which could adversely affect our tenants' ability to make rent payments to us.

On April 16, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, which among other things, permanently repealed the Sustainable Growth Rate formula ("SGR"), which threatened physician reimbursement under Medicare, and provided for an annual rate increase of 0.5% for physicians through 2019. The law also provides for a 1% cap on the market basket increase for skilled nursing facilities for fiscal year 2018. In addition, on July 30, 2015, CMS announced a final rule that increased Medicare payments to skilled nursing facilities by approximately $430 million, or 1.2%, for fiscal year 2016. If these rate increases and payments under Medicare to our tenants do not continue or increase, our tenants may have difficulty making rent payments to us.

In addition, there have been numerous initiatives on the federal and state levels for comprehensive reforms affecting the payment for and availability of healthcare services. We may acquire skilled nursing facility assets that rely on revenue from Medicaid or Medicare. Our tenants may experience limited increases or reductions in Medicare payments and aspects of certain of these government initiatives, such as further reductions in funding of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, additional changes in reimbursement regulations by CMS, enhanced pressure to contain healthcare costs by Medicare, Medicaid and other payors, and additional operational requirements may adversely affect their ability to make rental payments.

Certain of our facilities may be subject to pre- and post-payment reviews and audits by governmental authorities, which could result in recoupments, denials or delay of payments and could adversely affect the profitability of our tenants.

Certain of our facilities may be subject to periodic pre- and post-payment reviews and audits by governmental authorities. If the review or audit shows a facility is not in compliance with federal and state requirements, previous payments to the facility may be recouped and future payments may be denied or delayed. Recoupments, denials or delay of payments could adversely affect the profitability of our tenants and hinder their ability to make rent payments to us.

Events that adversely affect the ability of seniors and their families to afford daily resident fees at our seniors housing communities could cause our occupancy rates and resident fee revenues to decline.

Assisted and independent living services generally are not reimbursable under government reimbursement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Substantially all of the resident fee revenues generated by our senior living operations, therefore, are derived from private pay sources consisting of the income or assets of residents or their family members. The rates for such residents are set by the facilities based on local market conditions and operating costs. In light of the significant expense associated with building new properties and staffing and other costs of providing services, typically only seniors with income or assets that meet or exceed the comparable region median can afford the daily resident and care fees at our seniors housing communities, and a weak economy, depressed housing market or changes in demographics could adversely affect their continued ability to do so. If the managers of our seniors housing communities are unable to attract and retain seniors that have sufficient income, assets or other resources to pay the fees associated with assisted and independent living services, the occupancy rates, resident fee revenues and results of operations of our senior living operations could decline.

The healthcare industry is heavily regulated, and new laws or regulations, changes to existing laws or regulations, loss of licensure or failure to obtain licensure could result in the inability of our tenants to make rent payments to us.

The healthcare industry is heavily regulated by federal, state and local governmental bodies. The tenants in medical facilities we acquire generally are subject to laws and regulations covering, among other things, licensure, certification for participation in government programs, relationships with physicians and other referral sources, and the privacy and security of patient health information. Changes in these laws and regulations could negatively affect the ability of our tenants to make lease payments to us and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Many of our medical facilities and their tenants may require a license or CON to operate. Failure to obtain a license or CON, or loss of a required license or CON, would prevent a facility from operating in the manner intended by the tenant. These events could materially adversely affect our tenants' ability to make rent payments to us. State and local laws also may regulate expansion, including the addition of new beds or services or acquisition of medical equipment, and the construction of medical facilities, by requiring a CON or other similar approval. State CON laws are not uniform throughout the United States and are subject to change. We cannot predict the impact of state CON laws on our improvement of medical facilities or the operations of our tenants. In addition, state CON laws often materially impact the ability of competitors to enter into the marketplace of our facilities. The repeal of CON laws could allow competitors to freely operate in previously closed markets. This could negatively affect our tenants' abilities to make current payments to us. In limited circumstances, loss of state licensure or certification or closure of a facility could ultimately result in loss of authority to operate the facility and require new CON authorization to re-institute operations.

Furthermore, uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act may adversely affect our operators. As the primary vehicle for comprehensive healthcare reform in the United States, the Affordable Care Act was designed to reduce the number of individuals in the United States without health insurance and change the ways in which healthcare is organized, delivered and reimbursed. The Affordable Care Act is being implemented in phases that will conclude in 2018.

The Affordable Care Act includes program integrity provisions that both create new authorities and expand existing authorities for federal and state governments to address fraud, waste and abuse in federal health programs. In addition, the Affordable Care Act expands reporting requirements and responsibilities related to facility ownership and management, patient safety and care quality. In the ordinary course of their businesses, our operators may be regularly subjected to inquiries, investigations and audits by federal and state agencies that oversee these laws and regulations. If they do not comply with the additional reporting requirements and responsibilities, our operators' ability to participate in federal health programs may be adversely affected. Moreover, there may be other aspects of the comprehensive healthcare reform legislation for which regulations have not yet been adopted, which, depending on how they are implemented, could materially and adversely affect our operators, and therefore our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

The Affordable Care Act also requires the reporting and return of overpayments. On February 11, 2016, CMS published a final rule that requires Medicare Parts A and B health care providers and suppliers to report and return overpayments by the later of the date that is 60 days after the date an overpayment was identified, or the due date of any corresponding cost report, if applicable. Healthcare providers that fail to report and return an overpayment could face potential liability under the False Claims Act and the Civil Monetary Penalties law and exclusion from federal healthcare programs. Accordingly, if our operators fail to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s requirements, they may be subject to significant monetary penalties and excluded from participation in Medicare and Medicaid, which could materially and adversely affect their ability to pay rent and satisfy other financial obligations to us.

Residents in our seniors housing communities may terminate leases.

State regulations generally require assisted living communities to have a written lease agreement with each resident that permits the resident to terminate his or her lease for any reason on reasonable notice, unlike typical apartment lease agreements that have initial terms of one year or longer. Due to these lease termination rights and the advanced age of the residents, the resident turnover rate in our seniors housing communities may be difficult to predict. A large number of resident lease agreements may terminate at or around the same time, and the affected units may remain unoccupied.

Some tenants of our healthcare-related assets are subject to fraud and abuse laws, the violation of which by a tenant may jeopardize the tenant's ability to make rent payments to us.

There are various federal and state laws prohibiting fraudulent and abusive business practices by healthcare providers who participate in, receive payments from or are in a position to make referrals in connection with government-sponsored healthcare programs, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Our lease arrangements with certain tenants may also be subject to these fraud and abuse laws. These laws include the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, the offer, payment, solicitation or receipt of any form of remuneration in return for, or to induce, the referral of any item or service reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid; the Federal Physician Self-Referral Prohibition, which, subject to specific exceptions, restricts physicians from making referrals for specifically designated health services for which payment may be made under Medicare or Medicaid programs to an entity with which the physician, or an immediate family member, has a financial relationship; the False Claims Act, which prohibits any person from knowingly presenting false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government, including claims paid by the Medicare and Medicaid programs; and the Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which authorizes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to impose monetary penalties for certain fraudulent acts. Each of these laws includes criminal or civil penalties for violations that range from punitive sanctions, damage assessments, penalties, imprisonment, denial of Medicare and Medicaid payments and/or exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Certain laws, such as the False Claims Act, allow for individuals to bring whistleblower actions on behalf of the government for violations thereof. Additionally, states in which the facilities are located may have similar fraud and abuse laws. Investigation by a federal or state governmental body for violation of fraud and abuse laws or imposition of any of these penalties upon one of our tenants could jeopardize that tenant's business and its ability to operate or to make rent payments.

Adverse trends in healthcare provider operations may negatively affect our ability to lease space at our facilities at attractive or growing rates and lease revenues.

The healthcare industry currently is experiencing changes in the demand for and methods of delivering healthcare services; changes in third party reimbursement policies; significant unused capacity in certain areas, which has created substantial competition for patients among healthcare providers in those areas; continuing pressure by private and governmental payors to reduce payments to providers of services; and increased scrutiny of billing, referral and other practices by federal and state authorities. These factors may adversely affect the economic performance of some or all of our tenants and, in turn, our company and revenues.

Tenants of our healthcare-related assets may be subject to significant legal actions that could subject them to increased operating costs and substantial uninsured liabilities, which may affect their ability to pay their rent payments to us.

As is typical in the healthcare industry, certain types of tenants of our healthcare-related assets may often become subject to claims that their services have resulted in patient injury or other adverse effects. Many of these tenants may have experienced an increasing trend in the frequency and severity of professional liability and general liability insurance claims and litigation asserted against them. The insurance coverage maintained by these tenants may not cover all claims made against them nor continue to be available at a reasonable cost, if at all. In some states, insurance coverage for the risk of punitive damages arising from professional liability and general liability claims or litigation may not, in certain cases, be available to these tenants due to state law prohibitions or limitations of availability. As a result, these types of tenants operating in these states may be liable for punitive damage awards that are either not covered or are in excess of their insurance policy limits. Recently, there has been an increase in governmental investigations of certain healthcare providers, particularly in the area of Medicare/Medicaid false claims, as well as an increase in enforcement actions resulting from these investigations. Insurance is not available to cover such losses. Any adverse determination in a legal proceeding or governmental investigation, whether currently asserted or arising in the future, could have a material adverse effect on a tenant's financial condition. If a tenant is unable to obtain or maintain insurance coverage, if judgments are obtained in excess of the insurance coverage, if a tenant is required to pay uninsured punitive damages, or if a tenant is subject to an uninsurable government enforcement action, the tenant could be exposed to substantial additional liabilities, which may affect the tenant's business, operations and ability to pay rent to us.

We may experience adverse effects as a result of potential financial and operational challenges faced by the operators of any seniors housing facilities and skilled nursing facilities we own or acquire.

Operators of any seniors housing facilities and skilled nursing facilities may face operational challenges from potentially reduced revenue streams and increased demands on their existing financial resources. Our skilled nursing operators' revenues likely are primarily derived from governmentally funded reimbursement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Accordingly, our facility operators will be subject to the potential negative effects of decreased reimbursement rates offered through such programs. Our operators' revenue may also be adversely affected as a result of falling occupancy rates or slow lease-ups for assisted and independent living facilities due to the recent turmoil in the capital debt and real estate markets. In addition, our facility operators may incur additional demands on their existing financial resources as a result of increases in seniors housing facility operator liability, insurance premiums and other operational expenses. The economic deterioration of an operator could cause such operator to file for bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy or insolvency of an operator may adversely affect the income produced by the property or properties it operates. Our financial position could be weakened and our ability to make distributions could be limited if any of our seniors housing facility operators were unable to meet their financial obligations to us.

Our operators' performance and economic condition may be negatively affected if they fail to comply with various complex federal and state laws that govern a wide array of referrals, relationships and licensure requirements in the senior healthcare industry. The violation of any of these laws or regulations by a seniors housing facility operator may result in the imposition of fines or other penalties that could jeopardize that operator's ability to make payment obligations to us or to continue operating its facility. In addition, legislative proposals are commonly being introduced or proposed in federal and state legislatures that could affect major changes in the seniors housing sector, either nationally or at the state level. It is impossible to say with any certainty whether this proposed legislation will be adopted or, if adopted, what effect such legislation would have on our facility operators and our seniors housing operations.

Risks Associated with Debt Financing and Investments

We have broad authority to incur debt.

We expect that in most instances, we will continue to acquire real properties by using either existing financing or borrowing new funds. In addition, we may continue to incur mortgage debt and pledge all or some of our real properties as security for that debt to obtain funds to acquire additional real properties. We may borrow if we need funds to satisfy the REIT tax qualification requirement that we generally distribute annually to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (which does not equal net income as calculated in accordance with GAAP), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding capital gain. We also may borrow if we otherwise deem it necessary or advisable to assure that we maintain our qualification as a REIT.

There is no limit on the amount we may borrow against any single improved property. High debt levels would cause us to incur higher interest charges, would result in higher debt service payments and could be accompanied by restrictive covenants.

We may experience a shortfall between the cash flow from a property and the cash flow needed to service mortgage debt on that property, especially if we acquire the property when it is being developed or under construction. Using leverage increases the risk of loss because defaults on indebtedness secured by a property may result in lenders initiating foreclosure actions. In that case, we could lose the property securing the loan that is in default, thus reducing the value of our stockholders' investment. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, a foreclosure of any of our properties would be treated as a sale of the property for a purchase price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on foreclosure, but would not receive any cash proceeds. In such event, we may be unable to pay the amount of distributions required in order to maintain our REIT status. We may give full or partial guarantees to lenders of mortgage debt to the entities that own our properties. If we provide a guaranty on behalf of an entity that owns one of our properties, we will be responsible to the lender for satisfaction of the debt if it is not paid by such entity. If any mortgages contain cross-collateralization or cross-default provisions, a default on a single property could affect multiple properties.

The debt markets may be volatile.

Volatility or disruption in debt markets could result in lenders increasing the cost for debt financing or limiting the availability of debt financing. If the overall cost of borrowings increase, either by increases in the index rates or by increases in lender spreads, we will need to factor such increases into the economics of future acquisitions. This may result in future acquisitions generating lower overall economic returns. If debt markets experience volatility or disruptions, our ability to borrow monies to finance the purchase of, or other activities related to, real estate assets will be negatively impacted.

If we are unable to borrow monies on terms and conditions that we find acceptable, we likely will have to reduce the number of properties we can purchase, and the return on the properties we do purchase may be lower. In addition, we may find it difficult, costly or impossible to refinance indebtedness which is maturing.

In addition, the state of the debt markets could have an impact on the overall amount of capital available to invest in real estate which may result in price or value decreases of real estate assets. This could negatively impact the value of our assets after the time we acquire them.

We may not be able to refinance our indebtedness.

Mortgage debt on properties increases the risk that we will be unable to refinance the properties when the loans come due or that we will be able to refinance on favorable terms. If interest rates are higher than the rates on the expiring debt, we may not be able to refinance the debt or our interest expense could increase.

Lenders may require us to enter into restrictive covenants relating to our operations.

In connection with providing us financing, a lender could impose restrictions on us that affect our distribution and operating policies and our ability to incur additional debt. Loan documents we enter into may contain covenants that limit our ability to further mortgage the property, discontinue insurance coverage or replace our Advisor. These or other limitations may adversely affect our flexibility and our ability to achieve our investment and operating objectives.

Increases in interest rates could increase the amount of our debt payments and adversely affect our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

We have incurred indebtedness, and we expect that we will incur additional indebtedness in the future. To the extent that we incur variable rate debt, increases in interest rates would increase our interest costs, which could reduce our cash flows and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders. If we refinance long-term debt at high interest rates it may reduce the cash we have available to make distributions to our stockholders. In addition, if we need to repay existing debt during periods of rising interest rates, we could be required to liquidate one or more of our investments in properties at times that may not permit realization of the maximum return on such investments.

We may invest in collateralized mortgage-backed securities, which may increase our exposure to credit and interest rate risk.

We may invest in collateralized mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS"), which may increase our exposure to credit and interest rate risk. We have not adopted, and do not expect to adopt, any formal policies or procedures designed to manage risks associated with our investments in CMBS. In this context, credit risk is the risk that borrowers will default on the mortgages underlying the CMBS. While we may invest in CMBS guaranteed by U.S. government agencies, such as the Government National Mortgage Association ("GNMA"), or U.S. government sponsored enterprises, such as the Federal National Mortgage Association ("FNMA") or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("FHLMC"), there is no guarantee that such CMBS will be available or continue to be guaranteed by the U.S. government. Interest rate risk occurs as prevailing market interest rates change relative to the current yield on the CMBS. For example, when interest rates fall, borrowers are more likely to prepay their existing mortgages to take advantage of the lower cost of financing. As prepayments occur, principal is returned to the holders of the CMBS sooner than expected, thereby lowering the effective yield on the investment. On the other hand, when interest rates rise, borrowers are more likely to maintain their existing mortgages. As a result, prepayments decrease, thereby extending the average maturity of the mortgages underlying the CMBS.

Any real estate debt securities that we originate or purchase are subject to the risks of delinquency and foreclosure.

We may originate and purchase real estate debt securities, which are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss. Typically, we will not have recourse to the personal assets of our borrowers. The ability of a borrower to repay a real estate debt security secured by an income-producing property depends primarily upon the successful operation of the property, rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower's ability to repay the real estate debt security may be impaired.

A property's net operating income can be affected by, among other things:

We bear the risks of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the real estate debt security, which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations and limit amounts available for distribution to our stockholders. In the event of the bankruptcy of a real estate debt security borrower, the real estate debt security to that borrower will be deemed to be collateralized only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the real estate debt security will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law. Foreclosure of a real estate debt security can be an expensive and lengthy process that could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed real estate debt security. We also may be forced to foreclose on certain properties, be unable to sell these properties and be forced to incur substantial expenses to improve operations at the property.

Disruptions in the financial markets and challenging economic conditions could adversely impact the market for real estate-related debt investments, which could hinder our ability to implement our business strategy and generate returns to our stockholders.

We may allocate a percentage of our portfolio to real estate-related investments such as debt and derivative securities related to real estate assets, including mortgage-backed securities and the equity securities of other REITs and real estate companies. The returns available to investors in these investments are determined by (a) the supply and demand for these investments, (b) the performance of the assets underlying the investments, and (c) the existence of a market for these investments, which includes the ability to sell or finance these investments.

During periods of volatility, the number of investors participating in the market may change at an accelerated pace. As liquidity or "demand" increases the returns available to investors on new investments will decrease. Conversely, a lack of liquidity will cause the returns available to investors on new investments to increase.

Any hedging strategies we utilize may not be successful in mitigating our risks.

We may enter into hedging transactions to manage risk of interest rate changes, price changes or currency fluctuations with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or own real estate assets. To the extent that we use derivative financial instruments in connection with these risks, we will be exposed to credit, basis and legal enforceability risks. Derivative financial instruments may include interest rate swap contracts, interest rate cap or floor contracts, futures or forward contracts, options or repurchase agreements. In this context, credit risk is the failure of the counterparty to perform under the terms of the derivative contract. If the fair value of a derivative contract is positive, the counterparty owes us, which creates credit risk for us. Basis risk occurs when the index upon which the contract is based is more or less variable than the index upon which the hedged asset or liability is based, thereby making the hedge less effective. Finally, legal enforceability risks encompass general contractual risks, including the risk that the counterparty will breach the terms of, or fail to perform its obligations under, the derivative contract.

U.S. Federal Income Tax Risks

Our failure to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT would subject us to U.S. federal income tax and potentially state and local tax, and would adversely affect our operations and the market price of our common stock.

We elected and qualified to be taxed as a REIT commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2013 and intend to operate in a manner that would allow us to continue to qualify as a REIT. However, we may terminate our REIT qualification, if our board of directors determines that not qualifying as a REIT is in our best interests, or inadvertently. Our qualification as a REIT depends upon our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. The REIT qualification requirements are extremely complex and interpretation of the U.S. federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT is limited. Furthermore, any opinion of our counsel, including tax counsel, as to our eligibility to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT is not binding on the IRS and is not a guarantee that we will qualify, or continue to qualify, as a REIT. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that we will be successful in operating so we can qualify or remain qualified as a REIT. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends on our analysis of the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we will not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income or quarterly asset requirements also requires us to successfully manage the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, if certain of our operations were to be recharacterized by the IRS, such recharacterization would jeopardize our ability to satisfy all requirements for qualification as a REIT. Furthermore, future legislative, judicial or administrative changes to the U.S. federal income tax laws could be applied retroactively, which could result in our disqualification as a REIT.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT for any taxable year, and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income at corporate rates. In addition, we would generally be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year of losing our REIT qualification. Losing our REIT qualification would reduce our net earnings available for investment or distribution to stockholders because of the additional tax liability. In addition, distributions to stockholders would no longer qualify for the dividends paid deduction, and we would no longer be required to make distributions. If this occurs, we might be required to borrow funds or liquidate some investments in order to pay the applicable tax.

Even if we qualify as a REIT, in certain circumstances, we may incur tax liabilities that would reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Even if we qualify and maintain our status as a REIT, we may be subject to U.S. federal, state and local income taxes. For example, net income from the sale of properties that are "dealer" properties sold by a REIT (a "prohibited transaction" under the Code) will be subject to a 100% tax. We may not make sufficient distributions to avoid excise taxes applicable to REITs. We also may decide to retain net capital gain we earn from the sale or other disposition of our property and pay U.S. federal income tax directly on such income. In that event, our stockholders would be treated as if they earned that income and paid the tax on it directly. However, stockholders that are tax-exempt, such as charities or qualified pension plans, would have no benefit from their deemed payment of such tax liability unless they file U.S. federal income tax returns and thereon seek a refund of such tax. We also will be subject to corporate tax on any undistributed REIT taxable income. We also may be subject to state and local taxes on our income or property, including franchise, payroll and transfer taxes, either directly or at the level of our OP or at the level of the other companies through which we indirectly own our assets, such as taxable REIT subsidiaries, which are subject to full U.S. federal, state, local and foreign corporate-level income taxes. Any taxes we pay directly or indirectly will reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

To qualify as a REIT we must meet annual distribution requirements, which may force us to forgo otherwise attractive opportunities or borrow funds during unfavorable market conditions. This could delay or hinder our ability to meet our investment objectives and reduce an overall return.

In order to qualify as a REIT, we must distribute annually to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (which does not equal net income as calculated in accordance with GAAP), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. We will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our undistributed REIT taxable income and net capital gain and to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on any amount by which distributions we pay with respect to any calendar year are less than the sum of (a) 85% of our ordinary income, (b) 95% of our capital gain net income and (c) 100% of our undistributed income from prior years. These requirements could cause us to distribute amounts that otherwise would be spent on investments in real estate assets and it is possible that we might be required to borrow funds, possibly at unfavorable rates, or sell assets to fund these distributions. It is possible that we might not always be able to make distributions sufficient to meet the annual distribution requirements and to avoid U.S. federal income and excise taxes on our earnings while we qualify as a REIT.

Certain of our business activities are potentially subject to the prohibited transaction tax, which could reduce the return on an investment in our shares.

For so long as we qualify as a REIT, our ability to dispose of property during the first few years following acquisition may be restricted to a substantial extent as a result of our REIT qualification. Under applicable provisions of the Code regarding prohibited transactions by REITs, while we qualify as a REIT, we will be subject to a 100% penalty tax on any gain recognized on the sale or other disposition of any property (other than foreclosure property) that we own, directly or indirectly through any subsidiary entity, including our OP, but generally excluding taxable REIT subsidiaries, that is deemed to be inventory or property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business. Whether property is inventory or otherwise held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business depends on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding each property. We intend to avoid the 100% prohibited transaction tax by (a) conducting activities that may otherwise be considered prohibited transactions through a taxable REIT subsidiary (but such taxable REIT subsidiary would incur corporate rate income taxes with respect to any income or gain recognized by it), (b) conducting our operations in such a manner so that no sale or other disposition of an asset we own, directly or indirectly through any subsidiary, will be treated as a prohibited transaction or (c) structuring certain dispositions of our properties to comply with the requirements of the prohibited transaction safe harbor available under the Code for properties that, among other requirements, have been held for at least two years. Despite our present intention, no assurance can be given that any particular property we own, directly or through any subsidiary entity, including our OP, but generally excluding taxable REIT subsidiaries, will not be treated as inventory or property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business.

Our taxable REIT subsidiaries are subject to corporate-level taxes and our dealings with our taxable REIT subsidiaries may be subject to 100% excise tax.

A REIT may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a taxable REIT subsidiary. A corporation of which a taxable REIT subsidiary directly or indirectly owns more than 35% of the voting power or value of the stock will automatically be treated as a taxable REIT subsidiary. Overall, no more than 25% (20% for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017) of the gross value of a REIT's assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. A taxable REIT subsidiary may hold assets and earn income that would not be qualifying assets or income if held or earned directly by a REIT, including gross income from operations pursuant to management contracts. We may lease some of our "qualified health care properties" to one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries which in turn contract with independent third-party management companies to operate such "qualified health care properties" on behalf of such taxable REIT subsidiaries. We may use taxable REIT subsidiaries generally for other activities as well, such as to hold properties for sale in the ordinary course of a trade or business or to hold assets or conduct activities that we cannot conduct directly as a REIT. A taxable REIT subsidiary will be subject to applicable U.S. federal, state, local and foreign income tax on its taxable income. In addition, the rules, which are applicable to us as a REIT, also impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a taxable REIT subsidiary and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm's-length basis.

If our leases to our taxable REIT subsidiaries are not respected as true leases for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we likely would fail to qualify as a REIT.

To qualify as a REIT, we must satisfy two gross income tests, under which specified percentages of our gross income must be derived from certain sources, such as “rents from real property.” Rents paid to our OP by our taxable REIT subsidiaries pursuant to the lease of our “qualified healthcare properties” will constitute a substantial portion of our gross income. In order for such rent to qualify as “rents from real property” for purposes of the REIT gross income tests, the leases must be respected as true leases for U.S. federal income tax purposes and not be treated as service contracts, joint ventures or some other type of arrangement. If our leases are not respected as true leases for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we may fail to qualify as a REIT.

If our OP failed to qualify as a partnership or is not otherwise disregarded for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we would cease to qualify as a REIT.

We intend to maintain the status of our OP as a partnership or a disregarded entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, if the IRS were to successfully challenge the status of our OP as a partnership or disregarded entity for such purposes, it would be taxable as a corporation. In such event, this would reduce the amount of distributions that the OP could make to us. This also would result in our failing to qualify as a REIT, and becoming subject to a corporate level tax on our income. This substantially would reduce our cash available to pay distributions and the yield on our stockholders' investment. In addition, if any of the partnerships or limited liability companies through which our OP owns its properties, in whole or in part, loses its characterization as a partnership and is otherwise not disregarded for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it would be subject to taxation as a corporation, thereby reducing distributions to the OP. Such a recharacterization of an underlying property owner could also threaten our ability to maintain our REIT qualification.

If our "qualified health care properties" are not properly leased to a taxable REIT subsidiary or the managers of such "qualified health care properties" do not qualify as "eligible independent contractors," we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

In general, we cannot operate any "qualified health care properties" and can only indirectly participate in the operation of "qualified health care properties" on an after-tax basis through leases of such properties to health care facility operators or our taxable REIT subsidiaries. A "qualified health care property" includes any real property, and any personal property incident to such real property, which is, or is necessary or incidental to the use of, a hospital, nursing facility, assisted living facility, congregate care facility, qualified continuing care facility, or other licensed facility which extends medical or nursing or ancillary services to patients and which is operated by a provider of such services which is eligible for participation in the Medicare program with respect to such facility. Rent paid by a lessee that is a "related party tenant" of ours will not be qualifying income for purposes of the two gross income tests applicable to REITs. A taxable REIT subsidiary that leases "qualified health care properties" from us will not be treated as a "related party tenant" with respect to our "qualified health care properties" that are managed by an independent management company, so long as the independent management company qualifies as an "eligible independent contractor."

Each of the management companies that enters into a management contract with our taxable REIT subsidiaries must qualify as an "eligible independent contractor" under the REIT rules in order for the rent paid to us by our taxable REIT subsidiaries to be qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests. An "eligible independent contractor" is an independent contractor that, at the time such contractor enters into a management or other agreement with a taxable REIT subsidiary to operate a "qualified health care property," is actively engaged in the trade or business of operating "qualified health care properties" for any person not related, as defined in the Code, to us or the taxable REIT subsidiary. Among other requirements, in order to qualify as an independent contractor a manager must not own, directly or applying attribution provisions of the Code, more than 35% of our outstanding shares of stock (by value), and no person or group of persons can own more than 35% of our outstanding shares and 35% of the ownership interests of the manager (taking into account only owners of more than 5% of our shares and, with respect to ownership interest in such managers that are publicly traded, only holders of more than 5% of such ownership interests). The ownership attribution rules that apply for purposes of the 35% thresholds are complex. There can be no assurance that the levels of ownership of our stock by our managers and their owners will not be exceeded.

Our investments in certain debt instruments may cause us to recognize income for U.S. federal income tax purposes even though no cash payments have been received on the debt instruments, and certain modifications of such debt by us could cause the modified debt to not qualify as a good REIT asset, thereby jeopardizing our REIT qualification.

Our taxable income may substantially exceed our net income as determined based on GAAP, or differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash may occur. For example, we may acquire assets, including debt securities requiring us to accrue original issue discount or recognize market discount income, that generate taxable income in excess of economic income or in advance of the corresponding cash flow from the assets. In addition, if a borrower with respect to a particular debt instrument encounters financial difficulty rendering it unable to pay stated interest as due, we may nonetheless be required to continue to recognize the unpaid interest as taxable income with the effect that we will recognize income but will not have a corresponding amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

As a result of the foregoing, we may generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year and find it difficult or impossible to meet the REIT distribution requirements in certain circumstances. In such circumstances, we may be required to (a) sell assets in adverse market conditions, (b) borrow on unfavorable terms, (c) distribute amounts that would otherwise be used for future acquisitions or used to repay debt, or (d) make a taxable distribution of our shares of common stock as part of a distribution in which stockholders may elect to receive shares of common stock or (subject to a limit measured as a percentage of the total distribution) cash, in order to comply with the REIT distribution requirements.

Moreover, we may acquire distressed debt investments that require subsequent modification by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding debt are “significant modifications” under the applicable Treasury Regulations, the modified debt may be considered to have been reissued to us in a debt-for-debt taxable exchange with the borrower. This deemed reissuance may prevent the modified debt from qualifying as a good REIT asset if the underlying security has declined in value and would cause us to recognize income to the extent the principal amount of the modified debt exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified debt.

The failure of a mezzanine loan to qualify as a real estate asset would adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

In general, in order for a loan to be treated as a qualifying real estate asset producing qualifying income for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests, the loan must be secured by real property or an interest in real property. We may acquire mezzanine loans that are not directly secured by real property or an interest in real property but instead secured by equity interests in a partnership or limited liability company that directly or indirectly owns real property or an interest in real property. In Revenue Procedure 2003-65, the IRS provided a safe harbor pursuant to which a mezzanine loan that is not secured by real estate would, if it meets each of the requirements contained in the Revenue Procedure, be treated by the IRS as a qualifying real estate asset. Although the Revenue Procedure provides a safe harbor on which taxpayers may rely, it does not prescribe rules of substantive tax law and in many cases it may not be possible for us to meet all the requirements of the safe harbor. We cannot provide assurance that any mezzanine loan in which we invest would be treated as a qualifying asset producing qualifying income for REIT qualification purposes. If any such loan fails either the REIT income or asset tests, we may be disqualified as a REIT.

We may choose to make distributions in our own stock, in which case stockholders may be required to pay U.S. federal income taxes in excess of the cash dividends stockholders receive.

In connection with our qualification as a REIT, we are required to distribute annually to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (which does not equal net income as calculated in accordance with GAAP), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. In order to satisfy this requirement, we may make distributions that are payable in cash or shares of our common stock (which could account for up to 80% of the aggregate amount of such distributions) at the election of each stockholder. Taxable stockholders receiving such distributions will be required to include the full amount of such distributions as ordinary dividend income to the extent of our current or accumulated earnings and profits, as determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, U.S. stockholders may be required to pay U.S. federal income taxes with respect to such distributions in excess of the cash portion of the distribution received.

Accordingly, U.S. stockholders receiving a distribution of our shares may be required to sell shares received in such distribution or may be required to sell other stock or assets owned by them, at a time that may be disadvantageous, in order to satisfy any tax imposed on such distribution. If a U.S. stockholder sells the stock that it receives as part of the distribution in order to pay this tax, the sales proceeds may be less than the amount included in income with respect to the distribution, depending on the market price of our stock at the time of the sale. Furthermore, with respect to certain non-U.S. stockholders, we may be required to withhold U.S. tax with respect to such distribution, including in respect of all or a portion of such distribution that is payable in stock, by withholding or disposing of part of the shares included in such distribution and using the proceeds of such disposition to satisfy the withholding tax imposed. In addition, there is no established trading market for our shares, thus stockholders may not be able to sell shares of our common stock in order to pay taxes owed on dividend income.

Various tax aspects of such a taxable cash/stock distribution are uncertain and have not yet been addressed by the IRS. No assurance can be given that the IRS will not impose requirements in the future with respect to taxable cash/stock distributions, including on a retroactive basis, or assert that the requirements for such taxable cash/stock distributions have not been met.

The taxation of distributions to our stockholders can be complex; however, distributions that we make to our stockholders generally will be taxable as ordinary income, which may reduce our stockholders anticipated return from an investment in us.

Distributions that we make to our taxable stockholders out of current and accumulated earnings and profits (and not designated as capital gain dividends or qualified dividend income) generally will be taxable as ordinary income. However, a portion of our distributions may (1) be designated by us as capital gain dividends generally taxable as long-term capital gain to the extent that they are attributable to net capital gain recognized by us, (2) be designated by us as qualified dividend income generally to the extent they are attributable to dividends we receive from our taxable REIT subsidiaries, or (3) constitute a return of capital generally to the extent that they exceed our accumulated earnings and profits as determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes. A return of capital is not taxable, but has the effect of reducing the basis of a stockholder's investment in our common stock.

Our stockholders may have tax liability on distributions that they elect to reinvest in common stock, but they would not receive the cash from such distributions to pay such tax liability.

Stockholders who participate in the DRIP, will be deemed to have received, and for U.S. federal income tax purposes will be taxed on, the amount reinvested in shares of our common stock to the extent the amount reinvested was not a tax-free return of capital. In addition, our stockholders are treated for tax purposes as having received an additional distribution to the extent the shares are purchased at a discount to fair market value. As a result, unless a stockholder is a tax-exempt entity, it may have to use funds from other sources to pay its tax liability on the value of the shares of common stock received.

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

The maximum tax rate applicable to qualified dividend income payable to U.S. stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates is 20%. Dividends payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for this reduced rate. Although this does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends payable by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including our common stock. Tax rates could be changed in future legislation.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge our liabilities effectively and may cause us to incur tax liabilities.

The REIT provisions of the Code may limit our ability to hedge our liabilities. Any income from a hedging transaction we enter into to manage risk of interest rate changes, price changes or currency fluctuations with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or carry real estate assets, or in certain cases to hedge previously acquired hedges entered into to manage risks associated with property that has been disposed of or liabilities that have been extinguished, if properly identified under applicable Treasury Regulations, does not constitute "gross income" for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests. To the extent that we enter into other types of hedging transactions, the income from those transactions will likely be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both of the gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may need to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a taxable REIT subsidiary. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities because our taxable REIT subsidiaries would be subject to tax on gains or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear. In addition, losses in a taxable REIT subsidiary generally will not provide any tax benefit, except for being carried forward against future taxable income of such taxable REIT subsidiary.

Complying with REIT requirements may force us to forgo and/or liquidate otherwise attractive investment opportunities.

To qualify as a REIT, we must ensure that we meet the REIT gross income tests annually and that at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets, including certain mortgage loans and certain kinds of mortgage-related securities. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) and no more than 25% (20% for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017) of the value of our total assets can be represented by securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate assets from our portfolio or not make otherwise attractive investments in order to maintain our qualification as a REIT. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

The ability of our board of directors to revoke our REIT qualification without stockholder approval may subject us to U.S. federal income tax and reduce distributions to our stockholders.

Our charter provides that our board of directors may revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if it determines that it is no longer in our best interest to continue to qualify as a REIT. If we cease to be a REIT, we would become subject to U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income and would no longer be required to distribute most of our taxable income to our stockholders, which may have adverse consequences on the return earned on an investment in our shares.

We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could increase our tax liability.

In recent years, numerous legislative, judicial and administrative changes have been made in the provisions of U.S. federal income tax laws applicable to investments similar to an investment in shares of our common stock. Additional changes to the tax laws are likely to continue to occur, and we cannot assure our stockholders that any such changes will not adversely affect the taxation of a stockholder. Any such changes could have an adverse effect on an investment in our shares or on the market value or the resale potential of our assets.

Although REITs generally receive better tax treatment than entities taxed as regular corporations, it is possible that future legislation would result in a REIT having fewer tax advantages, and it could become more advantageous for a company that invests in real estate to elect to be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a corporation. As a result, our charter provides our board of directors with the power, under certain circumstances, to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election and cause us to be taxed as a regular corporation, without the vote of our stockholders. Our board of directors has fiduciary duties to us and our stockholders and could only cause such changes in our tax treatment if it determines in good faith that such changes are in the best interest of us and our stockholders.

The share ownership restrictions of the Code for REITs and the 9.8% share ownership limit in our charter may inhibit market activity in shares of stock and restrict our business combination opportunities.

In order to qualify as a REIT, five or fewer individuals, as defined in the Code, may not own, actually or constructively, more than 50% in value of our issued and outstanding shares of stock at any time during the last half of each taxable year, other than the first year for which a REIT election is made. Attribution rules in the Code determine if any individual or entity actually or constructively owns our shares of stock under this requirement. Additionally, at least 100 persons must beneficially own our shares of stock during at least 335 days of a taxable year for each taxable year, other than the first year for which a REIT election is made. To help ensure that we meet these tests, among other purposes, our charter restricts the acquisition and ownership of our shares of stock.

Our charter, with certain exceptions, authorizes our directors to take such actions as are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT while we so qualify. Unless exempted by our board of directors, for so long as we qualify as a REIT, our charter prohibits, among other limitations on ownership and transfer of shares of our stock, any person from beneficially or constructively owning (applying certain attribution rules under the Code) more than 9.8% in value of the aggregate of our outstanding shares of stock and more than 9.8% (in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of any class or series of our shares of stock. Our board of directors may not grant an exemption from these restrictions to any proposed transferee whose ownership in excess of the 9.8% ownership limit would result in the termination of our qualification as a REIT. These restrictions on transferability and ownership will not apply, however, if our board of directors determines that it is no longer in our best interest to qualify as a REIT or that compliance with the restrictions is no longer required in order for us to so qualify as a REIT.

These ownership limits could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of the stockholders.

Non-U.S. stockholders will be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax and may be subject to U.S. federal income tax on distributions received from us and upon the disposition of our shares.

Subject to certain exceptions, distributions received from us will be treated as dividends of ordinary income to the extent of our current or accumulated earnings and profits. Such dividends ordinarily will be subject to U.S. withholding tax at a 30% rate, or such lower rate as may be specified by an applicable income tax treaty, unless the distributions are treated as "effectively connected" with the conduct by the non-U.S. stockholder of a U.S. trade or business. Pursuant to the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 ("FIRPTA"), capital gain distributions attributable to sales or exchanges of "U.S. real property interests" ("USRPIs") generally will be taxed to a non-U.S. stockholder (other than a qualified pension plan, entities wholly owned by a qualified pension plan and certain foreign publicly traded entities) as if such gain were effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. However, a capital gain dividend will not be treated as effectively connected income if (a) the distribution is received with respect to a class of stock that is regularly traded on an established securities market located in the United States and (b) the non-U.S. stockholder does not own more than 10% of the class of our stock at any time during the one-year period ending on the date the distribution is received. We do not anticipate that our shares will be "regularly traded" on an established securities market for the foreseeable future, and therefore, this exception is not expected to apply.

Gain recognized by a non-U.S. stockholder upon the sale or exchange of our common stock generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income taxation unless such stock constitutes a USRPI under FIRPTA. Our common stock will not constitute a USRPI so long as we are a "domestically-controlled qualified investment entity." A domestically-controlled qualified investment entity includes a REIT if at all times during a specified testing period, less than 50% in value of such REIT's stock is held directly or indirectly by non-U.S. stockholders. There is no assurance that we will be a domestically-controlled qualified investment entity.

Even if we do not qualify as a domestically-controlled qualified investment entity at the time a non-U.S. stockholder sells or exchanges our common stock, gain arising from such a sale or exchange would not be subject to U.S. taxation under FIRPTA as a sale of a USRPI if: (a) our common stock is "regularly traded," as defined by applicable Treasury Regulations, on an established securities market, and (b) such non-U.S. stockholder owned, actually and constructively, 10% or less of our common stock at any time during the five-year period ending on the date of the sale. However, it is not anticipated that our common stock will be "regularly traded" on an established market.

Potential characterization of distributions or gain on sale may be treated as unrelated business taxable income to tax-exempt investors.

If (a) we are a "pension-held REIT," (b) a tax-exempt stockholder has incurred (or is deemed to have incurred) debt to purchase or hold our common stock, or (c) a holder of common stock is a certain type of tax-exempt stockholder, dividends on, and gains recognized on the sale of, common stock by such tax-exempt stockholder may be subject to U.S. federal income tax as unrelated business taxable income under the Code.