This section describes material risks affecting our business. In connection with the forward-looking statements that appear in this annual report, you should carefully review the factors discussed below and the cautionary statements referred to in “Forward-Looking Statements.”

Impact of Current Economic Conditions

If current economic and market conditions were to deteriorate, our ability to obtain the capital and financing necessary for growth may be limited, which could limit our profitability, ability to make distributions and the market price of our common stock.

We depend upon the availability of adequate debt and equity capital for growth in our operations. Although historically we have been able to raise both debt and equity capital, recent market and economic conditions have made obtaining additional equity capital highly dilutive to existing shareholders and may possibly affect our ability to raise debt capital. If current economic conditions were to deteriorate, our ability to access debt or equity capital on acceptable terms, could be further limited, which could limit our ability to generate growth, our profitability, our ability to make distributions and the market price of our common stock. In addition, as a REIT, we must distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain, to our stockholders and are therefore not able to retain significant amounts of our earnings for new investments. While we may, through our TRSs retain earnings as new capital, we are subject to REIT qualification requirements that limit the value of TRS stock and securities relative to the other assets owned by a REIT.

(Back to Index)

12

(Back to Index)

We cannot predict the effects on us of actions taken by the U.S. government and governmental agencies in response to economic conditions in the United States.

In response to economic and market conditions, U.S. and foreign governments and governmental agencies have established or proposed a number of programs designed to improve the financial system and credit markets, and to stimulate economic growth. Many governments, including federal, state and local governments in the U.S., are incurring substantial budget deficits and seeking financing in international and national credit markets as well as proposing or enacting austerity programs that seek to reduce government spending, raise taxes, or both. Many credit providers, including banks, may need to obtain additional capital before they will be able to expand their lending activities. We are unable to evaluate the effects these programs and conditions will have upon our financial condition, income, or ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Economic conditions may impede our ability to complete the disposition of our remaining Plan assets, which include several legacy CRE assets and other miscellaneous non-CRE investments.

Our Board approved the Plan to dispose of non-core businesses in November 2016. Economic conditions may hinder our ability to complete the disposition of these assets and businesses. We have adjusted the amount of these assets to fair market value less costs to sell at December 31, 2019. However, we may not be able to dispose of the assets that remain at December 31, 2019 at prices that would allow us to recover the book value of our investments and we may incur further losses as a result of difficult economic conditions and/or lack of buying interest.

Risks Related to Our Financing

Our portfolio has been financed in material part through the use of leverage that may reduce the return on our investments and cash available for distribution.

Our portfolio has been financed in material part through the use of leverage and, as credit market conditions permit, we will seek such financing in the future. Using leverage subjects us to risks associated with debt financing, including the risks that:

If we are unable to secure refinancing of our currently outstanding financing, when due, on acceptable terms, we may be forced to dispose of some of our assets at disadvantageous terms or to obtain financing at unfavorable terms, either of which may result in losses to us or reduce the cash flow available to meet our debt service obligations or to pay distributions.

Financing that we may obtain and financing we have obtained through CRE debt securitizations typically require, or will require, us to maintain a specified ratio of the amount of the financing to the value of the assets financed. A decrease in the value of these assets may lead to margin calls or calls for the pledge of additional assets, which we will have to satisfy. We may not have sufficient funds or unpledged assets to satisfy any such calls, which could result in our loss of distributions from and interests in affected CRE debt securitizations, which would reduce our assets, income and ability to make distributions.

Our repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities and other short-term financings have credit risks that could result in losses.

If we accumulate assets for a CRE debt securitization on a short-term credit facility and do not complete the CRE debt securitization financing, or if a default occurs under the facility, the short-term lender will sell the assets and we would be responsible for the amount by which the original purchase price of the assets exceeds their sale price, up to the amount of our investment or guaranty.

We may lose money on our repurchase transactions if the counterparty to the transaction defaults on its obligation to resell the underlying security back to us at the end of the transaction term, or if the value of the underlying security has declined as of the end of the term or if we default on our obligations under the repurchase agreements.

(Back to Index)

13

(Back to Index)

We are exposed to loss if lenders under our repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities, or other short-term loans liquidate the assets securing those facilities. Moreover, assets acquired by us pursuant to our repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities or other short-term debt may not be suitable for refinancing through long-term arrangements that may require us to liquidate some or all of the related assets.

We have entered into repurchase agreements and warehouse facilities and expect in the future to seek additional debt to finance our growth. Lenders typically have the right to liquidate assets securing or acquired under these facilities upon the occurrence of specified events, such as an event of default. We are exposed to loss if the proceeds received by the lender upon liquidation are insufficient to satisfy our obligation to the lender. We are also subject to the risk that the assets subject to such repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities or other debt might not be suitable for long-term refinancing or securitization transactions. If we are unable to refinance these assets on a long-term basis, or if long-term financing is more expensive than we anticipated at the time of our acquisition of the assets to be financed, we might be required to liquidate assets.

We will incur losses on our repurchase transactions if the counterparty to the transactions defaults on its obligation to resell the underlying assets back to us at the end of the transaction term, or if the value of the underlying assets has declined as of the end of the term or if we default in our obligations to purchase the assets.

When engaged in repurchase transactions, we generally sell assets to the transaction counterparty and receive cash from the counterparty. The counterparty must resell the assets back to us at the end of the term of the transaction. Because the cash we receive from the counterparty when we initially sell the assets is less than the market value of those assets, if the counterparty defaults on its obligation to resell the assets back to us we will incur a loss on the transaction. We will also incur a loss if the value of the underlying assets has declined as of the end of the transaction term, as we will have to repurchase the assets for their initial value but would receive assets worth less than that amount. If we default upon our obligation to repurchase the assets, the counterparty may liquidate them at a loss, which we are obligated to repay. Any losses we incur on our repurchase transactions would reduce our equity and our earnings, and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Financing our REIT qualifying assets with repurchase agreements and warehouse facilities could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

We have entered into and intend to enter into, sale and repurchase agreements under which we nominally sell certain REIT qualifying assets to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase the sold assets. We believe that we will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as the owner of the assets that are the subject of any such agreement, notwithstanding that we may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, could assert that we did not own the assets during the term of the sale and repurchase agreement, in which case our ability to qualify as a REIT would be adversely affected. If any of our REIT qualifying assets are subject to a repurchase agreement and are sold by the counterparty in connection with a margin call, the loss of those assets could impair our ability to qualify as a REIT. Accordingly, unlike other REITs, we may be subject to additional risk regarding our ability to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT.

Historically, we have financed most of our investments through CRE debt securitizations and have retained the equity. CRE debt securitization equity receives distributions from the CRE debt securitization only if the CRE debt securitization generates enough income to first pay the holders of its debt securities and its expenses.

Historically, we have financed most of our investments through CRE debt securitizations in which we retained the equity interest. Depending on market conditions and credit availability, we intend to use CRE debt securitizations to finance our investments in the future. The equity interests of a CRE debt securitization are subordinate in right of payment to all other securities issued by the CRE debt securitization. The equity is usually entitled to all of the income generated by the CRE debt securitization after the CRE debt securitization pays all of the interest due on the debt securities and its other expenses. However, there will be little or no income available to the CDO equity if there are excessive defaults by the issuers of the underlying collateral, which would significantly reduce the value of that interest. Reductions in the value of the equity interests we have in a CRE debt securitization, if we determine that they are other-than-temporary, will reduce our earnings. In addition, the liquidity of the equity securities of CDOs is constrained and, because they represent a leveraged investment in the CRE debt securitization’s assets, the value of the equity securities will generally have greater fluctuations than the value of the underlying collateral.

(Back to Index)

14

(Back to Index)

If our CRE debt securitization financings fail to meet their performance tests, including over-collateralization requirements, our net income and cash flow from these CRE debt securitizations will be eliminated.

Our CRE debt securitizations generally provide that the principal amount of their assets must exceed the principal balance of the related securities issued by them by a certain amount, commonly referred to as “over-collateralization.” If delinquencies and/or losses exceed specified levels, based on the analysis by the rating agencies (or any financial guaranty insurer) of the characteristics of the assets collateralizing the securities issued by the CRE debt securitization issuer, the required level of over-collateralization may be increased or may be prevented from decreasing as would otherwise be permitted if losses or delinquencies did not exceed those levels. A failure by a CRE debt securitization to satisfy an over-collateralization test typically results in accelerated distributions to the holders of the senior debt securities issued by the CRE debt securitization entity, resulting in a reduction or elimination of distributions to more junior securities until the over-collateralization requirements have been met or the senior debt securities have been paid in full.

Our equity holdings and, when we acquire debt interests in CRE debt securitizations, our debt interests, if any, generally are subordinate in right of payment to the other classes of debt securities issued by the CRE debt securitization entity. Accordingly, if over-collateralization tests are not met, distributions on the subordinated debt and equity we hold in these CDOs will cease, resulting in a substantial reduction in our cash flow. Other tests (based on delinquency levels, interest coverage or other criteria) may restrict our ability to receive cash distributions from assets collateralizing the securities issued by the CRE debt securitization entity. Although at December 31, 2019, all of our CRE debt securitizations met their performance tests, we cannot assure you that our CRE debt securitizations will satisfy the performance tests in the future. For information concerning compliance by our CRE debt securitizations with their over-collateralization tests, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation - Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

If any of our CRE debt securitizations fail to meet collateralization or other tests relevant to the most senior debt issued and outstanding by the CRE debt securitization issuer, an event of default may occur under that CRE debt securitization. If that occurs, our Manager’s ability to manage the CRE debt securitization likely would be terminated and our ability to attempt to cure any defaults in the CRE debt securitization would be limited, which would increase the likelihood of a reduction or elimination of cash flow and returns to us in those CDOs for an indefinite time.

If we issue debt securities, the terms may restrict our ability to make cash distributions, require us to obtain approval to sell our assets or otherwise restrict our operations in ways that could make it difficult to execute our investment strategy and achieve our investment objectives.

Any debt securities we may issue in the future will likely be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Holders of senior securities may be granted the right to hold a perfected security interest in certain of our assets, to accelerate payments due under the indenture if we breach financial or other covenants, to restrict distributions, and to require us to obtain their approval to sell assets. These covenants could limit our ability to operate our business or manage our assets effectively. Additionally, any convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock. We, and indirectly our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities.

Depending upon market conditions, we intend to seek financing through CRE debt securitizations, which would expose us to risks relating to the accumulation of assets for use in the CRE debt securitizations.

Historically, we have financed a significant portion of our assets through the use of CRE debt securitizations, and have accumulated assets for these financings through short-term credit facilities, typically repurchase agreements or warehouse facilities. Depending upon market condition, and, consequently, the extent to which such financing is available to us, we expect to seek similar financing arrangements in the future. In addition to risks discussed above, these arrangements could expose us to other credit risks, including the following:

(Back to Index)

15

(Back to Index)

Risks Related to Our Hedges

Our hedging transactions may not completely insulate us from interest rate risk or pricing risk and may result in poorer overall investment performance than if we had not engaged in any hedging transactions.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to losses from adverse changes in interest rates. Our interest rate hedging activity varies in scope depending upon market conditions relating to, among other factors, the level and volatility of interest rates and the type of assets we hold. There are practical limitations on our ability to insulate our portfolio from all of the negative consequences associated with changes in short-term interest rates, including:

We have adopted written policies and procedures governing our hedging activities. Under these policies and procedures, our Board is responsible for approving the types of hedging instruments we may use, absolute limits on the notional amount and term of a hedging instrument and parameters for the credit-worthiness of hedge counterparties. The senior managers responsible for each of our targeted asset classes are responsible for executing transactions using the services of independent interest rate risk management consultants, documenting the transactions, monitoring the valuation and effectiveness of the hedges, and providing reports concerning our hedging activities and the valuation and effectiveness of our hedges to the audit committee of our Board no less often than quarterly. Our guidelines also require us to engage one or more experienced third-party advisors to provide us with assistance in the identification of interest rate and pricing risks, the analysis, selection and timing of risk protection strategies, the administration and negotiation of hedge documentation, settlement or disposition of hedges, compliance with hedge accounting requirements and measurement of hedge effectiveness and valuation.

Hedging against a decline in the values of our portfolio positions does not eliminate the possibility of fluctuations in the values of the positions or prevent losses if the values of the positions decline. Hedging transactions may also limit the opportunity for gain if the values of the portfolio positions should increase. Moreover, we may not be able to hedge against an interest rate fluctuation that is generally anticipated by the market.

The success of our hedging transactions will depend on our Manager’s ability to correctly predict movements of interest rates. Therefore, unanticipated changes in interest rates may result in poorer overall investment performance than if we had not engaged in any such hedging transactions. In addition, the degree of correlation between price movements of the instruments used in a hedging strategy and price movements in the portfolio positions being hedged may vary. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, we may not seek to establish a perfect correlation between such hedging instruments and the portfolio holdings being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss.

(Back to Index)

16

(Back to Index)

Hedging instruments often are not traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house, or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities and involve risks of default by the hedging counterparty and illiquidity.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, part of our investment strategy involves entering into puts and calls on securities or indices of securities, interest rate swaps, caps and collars, including options and forward contracts and interest rate lock agreements, principally Treasury lock agreements, to seek to hedge against mismatches between the cash flows from our assets and the interest payments on our liabilities. Currently, many hedging instruments are not traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house, or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, there may be no applicable requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and positions. Furthermore, the enforceability of agreements underlying derivative transactions may depend on compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. The business failure of a counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in a default. Default by a party with whom we entered into a hedging transaction may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to cover our resale commitments, if any, at the then current market price. Although generally we seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging positions, we may not always be able to dispose of or close out a hedging position without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to enter into an offsetting contract in order to cover our risk. A liquid secondary market may not exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and we may have to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in losses.

Hedging instruments that we enter into could expose us to unexpected losses in the future.

We have entered into and may in the future enter into hedging instruments that require us to fund cash payments under certain circumstances, for example, upon the early termination of the instrument caused by an event of default or other early termination event, or the decision by a counterparty to request additional collateral for margin it is contractually owed under the terms of the instrument. The amount due would be equal to the unrealized loss of the open positions with the counterparty and could also include other fees and charges. These transactions will be reflected on our consolidated balance sheets, and our ability to fund these obligations will depend on the liquidity of our assets and access to capital at the time, and the need to fund these obligations could adversely impact our financial condition.

Our interest rate hedging arrangements are cleared through a central counterparty and, as a consequence, our hedging strategy may fail if the utilized Derivatives Clearing Organization or Futures Commission Merchant defaults in its obligations.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued and continues to issue new rules regarding swaps, under the authority granted to it pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Most interest rate hedging arrangements that we enter into must be cleared by a Derivatives Clearing Organization, or DCO. We access the DCO through Futures Commission Merchants, or FCMs. For any centrally cleared interest rate swap, were the DCO or FCM to default in its obligations under these hedging arrangements, we would lose the hedge protection for which we had contracted and, depending upon market conditions, could result in significant losses to us. We cannot assure you that we could replace the defaulted hedges or that the terms of any replacement hedges we could obtain would be on similar terms, or as to the cost to us of obtaining replacement hedges.

Risks Related to Our Operations

We may change our investment strategy without stockholder consent, which may result in riskier investments than those currently targeted.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and our exclusion from regulation under the Investment Company Act, we may change our investment strategy, including the percentage of assets that may be invested in each asset class, or in the case of securities, in a single issuer, at any time without the consent of our stockholders, which could result in our making investments that are different from, and possibly riskier than, the investments described in this report. A change in our investment strategy may increase our exposure to interest rate, credit market and real estate market fluctuations, all of which may reduce the market price of our common stock and reduce our ability to make distributions to stockholders. Furthermore, a change in our asset allocation could result in our making investments in asset categories different from those described in this report.

(Back to Index)

17

(Back to Index)

We believe core earnings is an appropriate measure of our operating performance; however, in certain instances core earnings may not be reflective of actual economic results.

We utilize core earnings as a measure of our operating performance and believe that it is useful to analysts, investors and other parties in the evaluations of REITs. We believe core earnings is a useful measure of our operating performance because it excludes the effects of certain transactions and GAAP adjustments that we believe are not necessarily indicative of our current CRE loan origination portfolio and other CRE-related investments and operations. Core Earnings exclude (i) non-cash equity compensation expense, (ii) unrealized gains or losses, (iii) non-cash provision for loan losses, (iv) non-cash impairments on securities, (v) non-cash amortization of discounts or premiums associated with borrowings, (vi) net income or loss from limited partnership interests owned at the initial measurement date, (vii) net income or loss from non-core assets, (viii) real estate depreciation and amortization, (ix) foreign currency gains or losses and (x) income or losses from discontinued operations. Core Earnings may also be adjusted periodically to exclude certain one-time events pursuant to changes in GAAP and certain non-cash items. Although pursuant to the Management Agreement we calculate incentive compensation using Core Earnings excluding incentive compensation payable to our Manager, we include incentive compensation payable to our Manager in Core Earnings for reporting purposes. Core Earnings allocable to common shares, adjusted, or Core Earnings Adjusted, is a non-GAAP financial measure used to evaluate our operating performance. Core Earnings Adjusted exclude certain non-recurring items and the results of certain transactions that are not indicative of our ongoing operating performance. Core Earnings and Core Earnings Adjusted do not represent net income or cash generated from operating activities and should not be considered as an alternative to GAAP net income or as a measure of liquidity under GAAP. Our methodology for calculating Core Earnings and Core Earnings Adjusted may differ from methodologies used by other companies to calculate similar supplemental performance measures, and accordingly, our reported Core Earnings and Core Earnings Adjusted may not be comparable to similar performance measures used by other companies.

We believe economic book value is an appropriate measure of our economic position; however, it should not be considered a replacement to stockholders’ equity or common stock book value.

We utilize economic book value as a measure of our economic position and believe that it is useful to analysts, investors and other parties in the evaluations of REITs. We believe economic book value is a useful and appropriate supplement to GAAP stockholders’ equity and common stock book value because it adjusts common stock book value for the face redemption amounts of the outstanding preferred stock and convertible senior notes. Economic book value does not represent GAAP stockholders’ equity or common stock book value and should not be considered as an alternative to those measures.

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

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control, fail to correct any flaws in the design or operating effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure, or fail to prevent fraud, our stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other reporting, which could harm our business and the trading price of our common stock.

Many of our investments may be illiquid, which may result in our realizing less than their recorded value should we need to sell such investments quickly.

If we determine to sell one or more of our investments, we may encounter difficulties in finding buyers in a timely manner as real estate debt and other of our investments generally cannot be disposed of quickly, especially when market conditions are poor. Moreover, some of these assets may be subject to legal and other restrictions on resale. If we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we have previously recorded our investments. In addition, we may face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate an investment in a business entity to the extent that we, our Manager or C-III has or could be attributed with material non-public information regarding such business entity. These factors may limit our ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions and may also limit our ability to use portfolio sales as a source of liquidity, which could limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders or repay debt.

We may have to repurchase assets that we have sold in connection with CRE debt securitizations and other securitizations.

If any of the assets that we originate or acquire and sell or securitize do not comply with representations and warranties that we make about them, we may have to repurchase these assets from the CRE debt securitization or securitization vehicle, or replace them. In addition, we may have to indemnify purchasers for losses or expenses incurred as a result of a breach of a representation or warranty. Any significant repurchases or indemnification payments could materially reduce our liquidity, earnings and ability to make distributions.

(Back to Index)

18

(Back to Index)

If our allowance for loan losses is not adequate to cover actual future loan and lease losses, our earnings may decline.

We maintain an allowance for loan losses to provide for loan defaults and non-performance by borrowers of their obligations. Our allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual future loan losses and future provisions for loan losses could materially reduce our income. We base our allowance for loan losses on prior experience, as well as an evaluation of risks in the current portfolio. However, losses have in the past, and may in the future, exceed our current estimates, and the difference could be substantial. The amount of future losses is susceptible to changes in economic, operating and other conditions that may be beyond our control, including changes in interest rates, changes in borrowers’ creditworthiness and the value of collateral securing loans. Additionally, if we seek to expand our loan portfolios, we may need to make additional provisions for loan losses to ensure that the allowance remains at levels deemed appropriate by our management for the size and quality of our portfolios. While we believe that our allowance for loan and lease losses at December 31, 2019 is adequate to cover our anticipated losses, we cannot assure you that it will not increase in the future. Any increase in our allowance for loan losses will reduce our income and, if sufficiently large, could cause us to incur loss.

A new accounting standard will likely require us to increase our allowance for loan losses and may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In June 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued updated guidance that significantly changes how entities will measure credit losses for most financial assets and certain other instruments that are not measured at fair value through net income. The guidance will replace the incurred loss model under existing guidance with a current expected credit loss (“CECL”) model for instruments measured at amortized cost, and requires entities to record allowances for available-for-sale debt securities rather than reduce the carrying amount, as done under the other-than-temporary impairment model. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019.

The CECL reserve required is a valuation account that is deducted from the related loans’ and debt securities’ amortized cost basis on our consolidated balance sheets, and which will reduce our total stockholders’ equity. The initial CECL reserve recorded on January 1, 2020 will be reflected as a direct charge to retained earnings; however future changes to the CECL reserve will be recognized through net income on our consolidated statements of operations. While the guidance does not require any particular method for determining the CECL allowance, it does specify the allowance should be based on relevant information about past events, including historical loss experience, current portfolio and market conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts for the duration of each respective loan. Because our methodology for determining CECL allowances may differ from the methodologies employed by other companies, our CECL allowances may not be comparable with the CECL allowances reported by other companies. In addition, other than pursuant to a few narrow exceptions, the guidance requires that all financial instruments subject to the CECL model have some amount of reserve to reflect the GAAP principal underlying the CECL model that all loans, debt securities, and similar assets have some inherent risk of loss, regardless of credit quality, subordinate capital, or other mitigating factors. Accordingly, we expect that the adoption of the CECL model will materially affect how we determine our allowance for loan losses and could require us to increase our allowance and recognize provisions for loan losses earlier in the lending cycle. Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for loan losses. If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for loan losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our due diligence may not reveal all of an investment’s weaknesses.

Before investing in any asset, we will assess the strength and skills of the asset’s management and operations, the value of the asset and, for debt investments, the value of any collateral securing the debt, the ability of the asset or underlying collateral to service the debt and other factors that we believe are material to the performance of the investment. In making the assessment and otherwise conducting customary due diligence, we will rely on the resources available to us and, in some cases, an investigation by third parties. This process is particularly important and subjective with respect to investments in newly-organized entities because there may be little or no information publicly available about the entities or, with respect to debt securities, any underlying collateral. Our due diligence processes, however, may not uncover all facts that may be relevant to an investment decision.

The ability to sell our fixed-rate CRE loans held for sale to CMBS securitizations is an important source of our liquidity to fund this business. If we are unable to sell our fixed-rate CRE loans held for sale to CMBS securitizations in accordance with our operating strategy, we may be unable to sell the loans on economically viable terms, if at all, which would adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to fund operations.

If a substantial portion of our originated or acquired fixed-rate CRE loans held for sale are unable to be sold to CMBS securitizations, we may not be able to find alternative markets in which to sell the loans on commercially favorable terms, which would adversely impact our operations in this business line and prevent us from originating new fixed-rate CRE loans. If we are unable to sell to CMBS securitizations, we may be required to sell assets at below market prices or hold the loans on our balance sheet as loans held for investment, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our overall financial position, profitability and liquidity.

(Back to Index)

19

(Back to Index)

Risks Related to Our Investments

Declines in the market values of our investments may reduce periodic reported results, credit availability and our ability to make distributions.

We classify a substantial portion of our assets for accounting purposes as “available-for-sale.” As a result, reductions in the market values of those assets are directly charged to accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) and reduce our stockholders’ equity. A decline in these values will reduce the book value of our assets. Moreover, if the decline in value of an available-for-sale asset is other-than-temporary, we are required by GAAP to record the decline as an asset impairment, which will reduce our earnings.

A decline in the market value of our assets may also adversely affect us in instances where we have borrowed money based on the market value of those assets. If the market value of those assets declines, the lender may require us to post additional collateral to support the loan. If we are unable to post the additional collateral, we would have to repay some portion or all of the loan, which may require us to sell assets, which could potentially be under adverse market conditions. As a result, our earnings would be reduced or we could sustain losses, and cash available to make distributions could be reduced or eliminated.

Increases in interest rates and other factors could reduce the value of our investments, result in reduced earnings or losses and reduce our ability to pay distributions.

A significant risk associated with our investment in CRE-related loans, CMBS and other debt investments is the risk that either or both of long-term and short-term interest rates increase significantly. If long-term rates increase, the market value of our assets would decline. Even if assets underlying investments we may own in the future are guaranteed by one or more persons, including government or government-sponsored agencies, those guarantees do not protect against declines in market value of the related assets caused by interest rate changes. At the same time, with respect to assets that are not match-funded or that have been acquired with variable rate or short-term financing, an increase in short-term interest rates would increase our interest expense, reducing our net interest spread or possibly result in negative cash flow from those assets. This could result in reduced profitability and distributions or losses.

Changes in the method for determining the LIBOR or a replacement of LIBOR may adversely affect the value of our loans, investments and borrowings and could affect our results of operations.

We utilize LIBOR as a benchmark interest rate for the pricing of our CRE loans and are exposed to LIBOR through our issuance of notes on our securitizations and the use of term facilities and repurchase agreements, certain of which are hedged with interest rate swap contracts. In July 2017, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority announced that it would phase out LIBOR as a benchmark by the end of 2021. It is unclear whether new methods of calculating LIBOR will be established such that it continues to exist after 2021. While there is no consensus on what rate or rates may become accepted alternatives to LIBOR, the U.S. Federal Reserve, in conjunction with the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, a steering committee comprising large U.S. financial institutions, has identified the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or SOFR, a new index calculated by short-term repurchase agreements, backed by U.S. Treasury securities, as its preferred alternative rate for LIBOR. When LIBOR ceases to exist, we may need to amend our loan and borrowing agreements and our derivative contracts that utilize LIBOR as a factor in determining the interest rate or hedge against fluctuations in LIBOR based on a new standard that is established, if any. Any resulting differences in interest rate standards among our assets and our borrowings may result in interest rate mismatches between our assets and the borrowings used to fund such assets. There is no guarantee that a transition from LIBOR to SOFR or to another alternative rate will not result in financial market disruptions and significant increases in benchmark rates, resulting in increased financing costs to us, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and the market price of our common stock.

Investing in mezzanine debt, preferred equity, mezzanine or other subordinated tranches of CMBS involves greater risks of loss than senior secured debt investments.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and exclusion from regulation under the Investment Company Act, we may invest in mezzanine debt, preferred equity and mezzanine or other subordinated tranches of CMBS. We currently have investments in mezzanine debt and preferred equity. These types of investments carry a higher degree of risk of loss than senior secured debt investments such as our whole loan investments because, in the event of default and foreclosure, holders of senior liens will be paid in full before mezzanine investors. Depending on the value of the underlying collateral at the time of foreclosure, there may not be sufficient assets to pay all or any part of amounts owed to mezzanine investors. Moreover, mezzanine and other subordinate debt investments may have higher LTV than conventional senior lien financing, resulting in less equity in the collateral and increasing the risk of loss of principal. If a borrower defaults or declares bankruptcy, we may be subject to agreements restricting or eliminating our rights as a creditor, including rights to call a default, cure a default, foreclose on collateral, and accelerate maturity or control decisions made in bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, the prices of lower credit quality securities are generally less sensitive to interest rate changes than more highly rated investments, but more sensitive to economic downturns or individual issuer developments because the ability of obligors of investments underlying the securities to make principal and interest payments may be impaired. In such event, existing credit support relating to the securities’ structure may not be sufficient to protect us against loss of our principal. For additional risks regarding real estate-related loans, see “Risks Related to Real Estate Investments.”

(Back to Index)

20

(Back to Index)

We record some of our portfolio investments, including those classified as assets held for sale, at fair value as estimated by our management and, as a result, there will be uncertainty as to the value of these investments.

We currently hold, and expect that we will hold in the future, portfolio investments that are not publicly traded. The fair value of securities and other investments that are not publicly traded may not be readily determinable. We value these investments quarterly at fair value as determined under policies approved by our Board. Because such valuations are inherently uncertain, may fluctuate over short periods of time and may be based on estimates, our determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that we would have obtained if a ready market for them existed. The value of our common stock will likely decrease if our determinations regarding the fair value of these investments are materially higher than the values that we ultimately realize upon their disposal.

We may face competition for suitable investments.

There are numerous REITs and other financial investors seeking to invest in the types of assets we target. This competition may cause us to forgo particular investments or to accept economic terms or structural features that we would not otherwise have accepted, and it may cause us to seek investments outside of our currently targeted areas. Competition for investment assets may slow our growth or limit our profitability and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We may not have control over certain of our loans and investments.

Our ability to manage our portfolio of loans and investments may be limited by the form in which they are made. In certain situations, we may:

Therefore, we may not be able to exercise control over the loan or investment. Such financial assets may involve risks not present in investments where senior creditors, servicers or third-party controlling investors are not involved. Our rights to control the process following a borrower default may be subject to the rights of senior creditors or servicers whose interests may not be aligned with ours. A third party partner or co-venturer may have financial difficulties resulting in a negative impact on such asset, may have economic or business interest or goals which are inconsistent with ours, or may be in a position to take action contrary to our investment objectives. In addition, in certain circumstances we may be liable for the actions of our third-party partners or co-venturers.

Risks Related to Real Estate Investments

Our investments in real estate and commercial mortgage loans, mezzanine loans and CRE equity investments are subject to the risks inherent in owning the real estate securing or underlying those investments that could result in losses to us.

Commercial mortgage loans are secured by, and mezzanine loans and CRE equity investments depend on, the performance of the underlying property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss, that are greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential properties. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan or make distributions secured by or dependent upon an income-producing property typically 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 loan or ability to make distributions may be impaired. Net operating income of an income producing property can be affected by, among other things:

(Back to Index)

21

(Back to Index)

We risk loss of principal on defaulted mortgage loans we hold to the extent of any deficiency between the value we can realize from the sale of the collateral securing the loan upon foreclosure and the loan’s principal and accrued interest. Moreover, foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process that could reduce the net amount we can realize on the foreclosed mortgage loan. In a bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy as determined by the bankruptcy court, and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law.

For a discussion of additional risks associated with mezzanine loans, see - “Risks Related to Our Investments - Investing in mezzanine debt, preferred equity and mezzanine or other subordinated tranches of CMBS involves greater risks of loss than senior secured debt investments.”

Our investment portfolio may have material geographic, sector, property-type and sponsor concentrations.

We may have material geographic concentrations related to our direct or indirect investments in real estate loans and properties. We also may have material concentrations in the property types and industry sectors that are in our loan portfolio. Where we have any kind of concentration risk in our investments, we may be affected by sector-specific economic or other problems that are not reflected in the national economy generally or in more diverse portfolios. An adverse development in that area of concentration could reduce the value of our investment and our return on that investment and, if the concentration affects a material amount of our investments, impair our ability to execute our investment strategies successfully, reduce our earnings and reduce our ability to make distributions.

The B-notes in which we may invest may be subject to additional risks relating to the privately negotiated structure and terms of the transaction, which may result in losses to us.

We may invest in B-notes. A B-note is a loan typically secured by a first mortgage on a single large commercial property or group of related properties and subordinated to a senior note secured by the same first mortgage on the same collateral. As a result, if a borrower defaults, there may not be sufficient funds remaining for B-note owners after payment to the senior note owners. Since each transaction is privately negotiated, B-notes can vary in their structural characteristics and risks. For example, the rights of holders of B-notes to control the process following a borrower default may be limited in certain investments. Depending upon market and economic conditions, we may make B-note investments at any time. B-notes are less liquid than other forms of CRE debt investments, such as CMBS, and, as a result, we may be able to dispose of underperforming or non-performing B-note investments only at a significant discount to book value.

We may be exposed to environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title.

In the course of our business, we have taken title to, and expect we will in the future take title to, real estate through foreclosure on collateral underlying real estate debt investments. When we do take title to any property, we could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to it. In such a circumstance, we may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs they incur as a result of environmental contamination, or may have to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances, or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial and could reduce our income and ability to make distributions.

(Back to Index)

22

(Back to Index)

Our investments in preferred equity involve a greater risk of loss than traditional debt financing.

We may make preferred equity investments in entities that own or acquire CRE properties. Preferred equity investments involve a higher degree of risk than first mortgage loans due to a variety of factors, including the risk that, similar to mezzanine loans, such investments are subordinate to first mortgage loans and are not collateralized by property underlying the investment. Unlike mezzanine loans, preferred equity investments generally do not have a pledge of the ownership interests of the entity that owns the interest in the entity owning the property. Although as a holder of preferred equity we may enhance our position with covenants that limit the activities of the entity in which we hold an interest and protect our equity by obtaining an exclusive right to control the underlying property after an event of default, should such a default occur on our investment, we would only be able to proceed against the entity in which we hold an interest, and not the property owned by such entity and underlying our investment. As a result, we may not recover some or all of our investment.

Risks Related to Our Manager

We depend on our Manager, C-III and Resource America to develop and operate our business and may not find suitable replacements if the Management Agreement terminates.

We have no direct employees. Our officers, portfolio managers, administrative personnel and support personnel are employees of C-III or Resource America. We have no separate facilities and completely rely on our Manager; and because our Manager has no direct employees, Resource America and C-III have significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and investment strategies. If our Management Agreement terminates, we may be unable to find a suitable replacement for our Manager. Moreover, we believe that our success depends to a significant extent upon the experience of the portfolio managers and officers of our Manager, C-III and Resource America who provide services to us, whose continued service is not guaranteed. The departure of any such persons could harm our investment performance.

Our Manager’s fee structure may not create proper incentives, and the incentive compensation we pay our Manager may increase the investment risk of our portfolio.

Our Manager is entitled to receive a base management fee equal to 1/12th of our equity, as defined in the Management Agreement, multiplied by 1.50%. Since the base management fee is based on our outstanding equity after December 31, 2018, our Manager could be incentivized to recommend strategies that increase our equity, and there may be circumstances where increasing our equity will not optimize the returns for our stockholders.

In addition to its base management fee, our Manager is entitled to receive incentive compensation, payable quarterly, equal to 20% of the amount by which our Core Earnings, as defined in the Management Agreement, exceed the weighted average of our book value per share at September 30, 2017 (subject to adjustments) and the prices for our common stock in all of our offerings subsequent to September 30, 2017, multiplied by the greater of 1.75% or 0.4375% plus one-fourth of the average ten-year U.S. Treasury rate for such quarter, multiplied by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the quarter. In evaluating investments and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn incentive compensation based on Core Earnings may lead our Manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of Core Earnings at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, in order to achieve higher incentive compensation. Investments with higher yields generally have higher risk of loss than investments with lower yields. If our interests and those of our Manager are not aligned, the execution of our business plan and our results of operations could be adversely affected, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our Manager manages our portfolio pursuant to very broad investment guidelines and our Board does not approve each investment decision, which may result in our making riskier investments.

Our Manager is authorized to follow very broad investment guidelines. While our directors periodically review our investment guidelines and our investment portfolio, they do not review all of our proposed investments. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, the directors may rely primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Furthermore, our Manager may use complex strategies, and transactions entered into by our Manager, which may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by the directors. Our Manager has great latitude within the broad investment guidelines in determining the types of investments it makes for us. Poor investment decisions could impair our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

(Back to Index)

23

(Back to Index)

Termination of the Management Agreement by us without cause is difficult and could be costly.

Termination of our Management Agreement without cause is difficult and could be costly. We may terminate the Management Agreement without cause only annually upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors or by a vote of the holders of at least a majority of our outstanding common stock, based upon unsatisfactory performance by our Manager that is materially detrimental to us or a determination that the management fee payable to our Manager is not fair. Moreover, with respect to a determination that the management fee is not fair, our Manager may prevent termination by accepting a mutually acceptable reduction of management fees. We must give not less than 180 days’ prior notice of any termination. Upon any termination without cause, our Manager will be paid a termination fee equal to four times the sum of the average annual base management fee and the average annual incentive compensation earned by it during the two 12-month periods immediately preceding the date of termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter before the date of termination.

Our Manager and C-III will face conflicts of interest relating to the allocation of investment opportunities and such conflicts may not be resolved in our favor, which could limit our ability to acquire assets and, in turn, limit our ability to make distributions and reduce your overall investment return.

Our Management Agreement does not prohibit our Manager, or C-III or Resource America from investing in or managing entities that invest in asset classes that are the same as, or similar to, our targeted asset classes, except that they may not raise funds for, sponsor or advise any new publicly-traded REIT that invests primarily in mortgage-backed securities, or MBS, in the United States. We rely on our Manager to identify suitable investment opportunities for us. Our executive officers and several of the other key real estate professionals, acting on behalf of our Manager, are also the key real estate professionals acting on behalf of the advisors of other investment programs sponsored by, and other clients managed by, Resource America or C-III. As such, these investment programs and clients rely on many of the same real estate professionals as will future programs and vehicles sponsored by Resource America and C-III. Many investment opportunities that are suitable for us may also be suitable for one or more of these investment programs or clients. When an investment opportunity becomes available, the applicable allocation committee established by C-III, in accordance with its investment allocation policies and procedures, will offer the opportunity to the investment program or client for which the investment opportunity is most suitable based on the investment objectives, portfolio and criteria of each. Thus, the allocation committees could direct attractive investment opportunities to an investment program or client other than us, which could result in us not investing in investment opportunities that could provide an attractive return or investing in investment opportunities that provide less attractive returns. Any of the foregoing may reduce our ability to make distributions to you.

Our officers and many of the investment professionals that provide services to us through our Manager are also officers or employees of Resource America or C-III and may face conflicts regarding the allocation of their time.

Our officers, other than our Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and several accounting and tax professionals on their staff, as well as the officers, directors and employees of C-III and Resource America who provide services to us, are not required to work full time on our affairs, and devote significant time to the affairs of Resource America or C-III. As a result, there may be significant conflicts between us, on the one hand, and our Manager, C-III and Resource America on the other, regarding allocation of our Manager’s and Resource America’s or C-III’s resources to the management of our investment portfolio.

We may invest in B-Pieces issued by CMBS trusts to which C-III may contribute loans, and as a result our Manager and C-III may have a conflict in determining whether any such loan should be excluded from the securitization.

We may seek opportunities to invest in the unrated or certain non-investment grade tranches of securities, or, collectively, a B-Piece, issued by CMBS trusts. Because a B-Piece represents the “first loss position,” or riskiest portion of the trust, the buyers of the senior CMBS tranches typically depend on the B-Piece buyer to conduct due diligence on the underlying loans expected to be contributed to the CMBS trust in the securitization. In such cases, our Manager will rely upon the personnel of C-III to analyze the loans and negotiate with the sponsor to potentially exclude certain loans determined to be too risky. If C-III Commercial Mortgage a wholly-owned subsidiary of C-III, seeks to contribute one or more loans to the same CMBS trust, our Manager and C-III may have a conflict in determining whether loans to be contributed by C-III Commercial Mortgage should be excluded from the securitization transaction.

We have engaged in and may again engage in transactions with entities affiliated with our Manager. Our policies and procedures may be insufficient to address any conflicts of interest that may arise.

We have established policies and procedures regarding review, approval and ratification of transactions that may give rise to a conflict of interest between persons affiliated or associated with our Manager and us. In the ordinary course of our business, we have ongoing relationships and have engaged in and may again engage in transactions with entities affiliated or associated with our Manager. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence - Relationships and Related Transactions” in this report. Our policies and procedures may not be sufficient to address any conflicts of interest that arise.

(Back to Index)

24

(Back to Index)

Our Manager’s liability is limited under the Management Agreement, and we have agreed to indemnify our Manager against certain liabilities.

Our Manager does not assume any responsibility other than to render the services called for under the Management Agreement, and will not be responsible for any action of our Board in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. C-III, Resource America, our Manager, their directors, managers, officers, employees and affiliates will not be liable to us, any subsidiary of ours, our directors, our stockholders or any subsidiary’s stockholders for acts performed in accordance with and pursuant to the Management Agreement, except for acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of their duties under the Management Agreement. We have agreed to indemnify the parties for all damages and claims arising from acts not constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of duties, performed in good faith in accordance with and pursuant to the Management Agreement.

Our business is highly dependent on communications and information systems, and systems failures or cybersecurity incidents could significantly disrupt our business, which may, in turn, negatively affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to operate our business.

We depend on the information systems of our Manager, C-III, Resource America and third parties. Any failure or interruption of our systems or cyber-attacks or security breaches of our networks or systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities, including MBS trading activities. A disruption or breach could also lead to unauthorized access to and release, misuse, loss or destruction of our confidential information or personal or confidential information of our Manager, C-III, Resource America or third parties, which could lead to regulatory fines, litigation, costs of remediating the breach and reputational harm. In addition, we also face the risk of operational failure, termination or capacity constraints of any of the third parties with which we do business or that facilitate our business activities, including clearing agents or other financial intermediaries we use to facilitate our securities transactions, if their respective systems experience failure, interruption, cyber-attacks, or security breaches. We may face increased costs as we continue to evolve our cyber defenses in order to contend with changing risks. These costs and losses associated with these risks are difficult to predict and quantify, but could have a significant adverse effect on our operating results.

Computer malware, viruses, computer hacking and phishing attacks have become more prevalent in our industry and may occur on our systems. We rely heavily on our financial, accounting and other data processing systems. Although we have not detected a material cybersecurity breach to date, other financial services institutions have reported material breaches of their systems, some of which have been significant. Even with all reasonable security efforts, not every breach can be prevented or even detected. It is possible that we have experienced an undetected breach. There is no assurance that we, or the third parties that facilitate our business activities, have not or will not experience a breach. It is difficult to determine what, if any, negative impact may directly result from any specific interruption or cyber-attacks or security breaches of our networks or systems (or the networks or systems of third parties that facilitate our business activities) or any failure to maintain performance, reliability and security of our technical infrastructure, but such computer malware, viruses and computer hacking and phishing attacks may negatively affect our operations.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

Our charter and bylaws contain provisions that may inhibit potential acquisition bids that you and other stockholders may consider favorable, and the market price of our common stock may be lower as a result.

Our charter and bylaws contain provisions that may have an anti-takeover effect and inhibit a change in our Board. These provisions include the following:

(Back to Index)

25

(Back to Index)

Maryland takeover statutes may prevent a change in control of us, and the market price of our common stock may be lower as a result.

Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act. Maryland law provides that “control shares” of a corporation acquired in a “control share acquisition” will have no voting rights except to the extent approved by a vote of two-thirds of the votes eligible to be cast on the matter under the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act, or the Maryland Act. The Maryland Act defines “control shares” as voting shares of stock that, if aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquirer or in respect of which the acquirer is able to 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 one of the following ranges of voting power: one-tenth or more but less than one-third, one-third or more but less than a majority, or a majority or more of all voting power. A “control share acquisition” means the acquisition of control shares, subject to specific exceptions.

If voting rights or control shares acquired in a control share acquisition are not approved at a stockholders’ meeting or if the acquiring person does not deliver an acquiring person statement as required by the Maryland Act then, subject to specific conditions and limitations, the issuer may redeem any or all of the control shares for fair value. If voting rights of such control shares are approved at a stockholders’ meeting and the acquirer becomes entitled to vote a majority of the shares entitled to vote, all other stockholders may exercise appraisal rights.

Our bylaws contain a provision exempting acquisitions of our shares from the Maryland Act. However, our Board may amend our bylaws in the future to repeal this exemption.

Business combinations. 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 such person 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.

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 statute permits exemptions from its provisions, including business combinations that are exempted by the board of directors before the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited, which could limit your recourse in the event of actions not in your best interests.

Our charter limits the liability of our directors and officers to our stockholders and us for money damages, except for liability resulting from:

(Back to Index)

26

(Back to Index)

In addition, our charter authorizes us to, and we do, indemnify our present and former directors and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Our bylaws require us to indemnify each present or former director or officer, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, in the defense of any proceeding to which he or she is made, or threatened to be made, a party by reason of his or her service to us. In addition, we may be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers.

Our right to take action against our Manager is limited.

The obligation of our Manager under the Management Agreement is to render its services in good faith. It will not be responsible for any action taken by our Board or investment committee in following or declining to follow its advice and recommendations. Furthermore, as discussed above under - “Risks Related to Our Manager,” it will be difficult and costly for us to terminate the Management Agreement without cause. In addition, we will indemnify our Manager, C-III, Resource America and their officers and affiliates for any actions taken by them in good faith.

We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and we cannot assure you of our ability to make distributions in the future. In the future, we may use uninvested offering proceeds or borrowed funds to make distributions.

We expect to make quarterly distributions to our stockholders in amounts such that we distribute all or substantially all of our taxable income in each year, subject to certain adjustments. We have not established a minimum distribution payment level, and our ability to make distributions may be impaired by the risk factors described in this report. All distributions will be made at the discretion of our Board and will depend on our earnings, our financial condition, maintenance of our REIT qualification and other factors as our Board may deem relevant from time to time. We may not be able to make distributions in the future. In addition, some of our distributions may include a return of capital. To the extent that we decide to make distributions in excess of our current and accumulated taxable earnings and profits, such distributions would generally be considered a return of capital for federal income tax purposes. A return of capital is not taxable, but it has the effect of reducing the holder’s tax basis in its investment. Although we currently do not expect that we will do so, we have in the past and may in the future also use proceeds from any offering of our securities that we have not invested or borrowed funds to make distributions. If we use uninvested offering proceeds to pay distributions in the future, we will have less funds available for investment and, as a result, our earnings and cash available for distribution would be less than we might otherwise have realized had such funds been invested. Similarly, if we borrow to fund distributions, our future interest costs would increase, thereby reducing our future earnings and cash available for distribution from what they otherwise would have been.

Loss of our exclusion from regulation under the Investment Company Act would require significant changes in our operations and could reduce the market price of our common stock and our ability to make distributions.

We rely on an exclusion from registration as an investment company afforded by Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act. To qualify for this exclusion, we do not engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading securities and we do not own “investment securities” with a value that exceeds 40% of the value of our total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. We may not be able to maintain such a mix of assets in the future, and attempts to maintain such an asset mix may impair our ability to pursue otherwise attractive investments. In addition, these rules are subject to change and such changes may have an adverse impact on us. We may need to avail ourselves of alternative exclusions and exemptions that may require a change in the organizational structure of our business.

Furthermore, as it relates to our investment in our real estate subsidiary, RCC RE, we rely on an exclusion from registration as an investment company afforded by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act. Given the material size of RCC RE relative to our 3(a)(1)(C) exclusion, were RCC RE to be deemed to be an investment company (other than by application of the Section 3(c)(1) exemption for closely held companies and the Section 3(c)(7) exemption for companies owned by “qualified purchasers”), we would not qualify for our 3(a)(1)(C) exclusion. Under the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion, RCC RE is required to maintain, on the basis of positions taken by the SEC staff in interpretive and no-action letters, a minimum of 55% of the value of the total assets of its portfolio in Qualifying Interests and a minimum of 80% in Qualifying Interests and real estate-related assets, with the remainder permitted to be miscellaneous assets. Because registration as an investment company would significantly affect RCC RE’s ability to engage in certain transactions or to organize itself in the manner it is currently organized, we intend to maintain its qualification for this exclusion from registration.

We treat our investments in CMBS, B-notes and mezzanine loans as Qualifying Interests for purposes of determining our eligibility for the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) to the extent such treatment is consistent with guidance provided by the SEC or its staff. In the absence of specific guidance or guidance that otherwise supports the treatment of these investments as Qualifying Interests, we will treat them, for purposes of determining our eligibility for the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C), as real estate-related assets or miscellaneous assets, as appropriate.

(Back to Index)

27

(Back to Index)

If RCC RE’s portfolio does not comply with the requirements of the exclusion we rely upon, it could be forced to alter its portfolio by selling or otherwise disposing of a substantial portion of the assets that are not Qualifying Interests or by acquiring a significant position in assets that are Qualifying Interests. Altering its portfolio in this manner may have an adverse effect on its investments if it is forced to dispose of or acquire assets in an unfavorable market, and may adversely affect our stock price.

If it were established that we were an unregistered investment company, there would be a risk that we would be subject to monetary penalties and injunctive relief in an action brought by the SEC that we would be unable to enforce contracts with third parties, that third parties could seek to obtain rescission of transactions undertaken during the period it was established that we were an unregistered investment company, and that we would be subject to limitations on corporate leverage that would have an adverse impact on our investment returns.

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

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

Tax Risks

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

To qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy various tests regarding the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our common stock. In order to meet these tests, we may be required to forgo investments we might otherwise make. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our investment performance.

In particular, at least 75% of our assets at the end of each calendar quarter must consist of real estate assets, government securities, cash and cash items. For this purpose, “real estate assets” generally include interests in real property, such as land, buildings, leasehold interests in real property, stock of other entities that qualify as REITs, interests in mortgage loans secured by real property, investments in stock or debt investments during the one-year period following the receipt of new capital and regular or residual interests in a real estate mortgage investment conduit, or REMIC. In addition, the amount of securities of a single issuer, other than a TRS, that we hold must generally not exceed either 5% of the value of our gross assets or 10% of the vote or value of such issuer’s outstanding securities.

Certain of the assets that we hold are not qualified and will not be qualified real estate assets for purposes of the REIT asset tests. CMBS securities should generally qualify as real estate assets. However, to the extent that we own non-REMIC collateralized mortgage obligations or other debt investments secured by mortgage loans (rather than by real property) or secured by non-real estate assets, or debt securities that are not secured by mortgages on real property, those securities are likely not qualifying real estate assets for purposes of the REIT asset test, and will not produce qualifying real estate income. Further, whether securities held by warehouse lenders or financed using repurchase agreements are treated as qualifying assets or as generating qualifying real estate income for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests depends on the terms of the warehouse or repurchase financing arrangement.

We generally will be treated as the owner of any assets that collateralize CRE debt securitization transactions to the extent that we retain all of the equity of the securitization vehicle and do not make an election to treat such securitization vehicle as a TRS, as described in further detail below. It may be possible to reduce the impact of the REIT asset and gross income requirements by holding certain assets through our TRSs, subject to certain limitations as described below.

Our qualification as a REIT and exemption from U.S. federal income tax with respect to certain assets may depend on the accuracy of legal opinions or advice rendered or given or statements by the issuers of securities in which we invest, and the inaccuracy of any such opinions, advice or statements may adversely affect our REIT qualification and result in significant corporate level tax.

When purchasing securities, we have relied and may rely on opinions or advice of counsel for the issuer of such securities, or statements made in related offering documents, for purposes of determining whether such securities represent debt or equity securities for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and also to what extent those securities constitute REIT real estate assets for purposes of the REIT asset tests and produce income that qualifies under the 75% REIT gross income test. In addition, when purchasing CDO equity, we have relied and may rely on opinions or advice of counsel regarding the qualification of interests in the debt of such CDOs for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The inaccuracy of any such opinions, advice or statements may adversely affect our REIT qualification and result in significant corporate-level tax.

(Back to Index)

28

(Back to Index)

We may realize excess inclusion income that would increase our tax liability and that of our stockholders.

If we realize excess inclusion income and allocate it to stockholders, this income cannot be offset by net operating losses of the stockholders. If the stockholder is a tax-exempt entity, then this income would be fully taxable as unrelated business taxable income under Section 512 of the Code. If the stockholder is a foreign person, it would be subject to federal income tax withholding on this income without reduction or exemption pursuant to any otherwise applicable income tax treaty.

Excess inclusion income could result if we hold a residual interest in a REMIC. Excess inclusion income also could be generated if we issue debt obligations, such as certain CRE debt securitizations, with two or more maturities and the terms of the payments on these obligations bore a relationship to the payments that we received on our mortgage related securities securing those debt obligations (i.e., if we were to own an interest in a taxable mortgage pool). While we do not expect to acquire significant amounts of residual interests in REMICs, nor do we currently own residual interests in taxable mortgage pools, we do issue debt in certain CRE debt securitizations that may generate excess inclusion income.

If we realize excess inclusion income, we will be taxed at the highest corporate income tax rate on a portion of such income that is allocable to the percentage of our stock held in record name by “disqualified organizations,” which are generally cooperatives, governmental entities and tax-exempt organizations that are exempt from unrelated business taxable income. To the extent that our stock owned by “disqualified organizations” is held in record name by a broker-dealer or other nominee, the broker/dealer or other nominee would be liable for the corporate level tax on the portion of our excess inclusion income allocable to the stock held by the broker-dealer or other nominee on behalf of “disqualified organizations.” We expect that disqualified organizations will own our stock. Because this tax would be imposed on us, all of our investors, including investors that are not disqualified organizations, would bear a portion of the tax cost associated with the classification of us or a portion of our assets as a taxable mortgage pool. A regulated investment company or other pass through entity owning stock in record name will be subject to tax at the highest corporate rate on any excess inclusion income allocated to its owners that are disqualified organizations. Finally, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, our taxable mortgage pool securitizations will be treated as separate corporations, for federal income tax purposes that cannot be included in any consolidated corporate tax return.

Failure to qualify as a REIT would subject us to federal income tax, which would reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We believe that we have been organized and operated in a manner that has enabled us to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended on December 31, 2005. However, the federal income tax laws governing REITs are extremely complex, and interpretations of the federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. Qualifying as a REIT requires us to meet various tests regarding the nature of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding stock, and the amount of our distributions on an ongoing basis.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any calendar year and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we will be subject to federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax on our taxable income, at regular corporate rates. Distributions to stockholders would not be deductible in computing our taxable income. Corporate tax liability would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders. Under some circumstances, we might need to borrow money or sell assets in order to pay that tax. Furthermore, if we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT and we do not qualify for the statutory relief provisions, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding net capital gains, to our stockholders. Unless our failure to qualify as a REIT was excused under federal tax laws, we could not re-elect to qualify as a REIT until the fifth calendar year following the year in which we failed to qualify. In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, our taxable mortgage pool securitizations will be treated as separate corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

A determination that we have not made required distributions would subject us to tax or require us to pay a deficiency dividend; payment of tax would reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

In order to qualify as a REIT, in each calendar year we must distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. To the extent that we satisfy the 90% distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed income. In addition, we will incur a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than the sum of:

(Back to Index)

29

(Back to Index)

We intend to make distributions to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the 90% distribution requirement and to distribute all or substantially all of our net taxable income to avoid both corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax. There is no requirement that a domestic TRS distribute its after-tax net income to its parent REIT or their stockholders and our U.S. TRSs may determine not to make any distributions to us. However, non-U.S. TRSs will generally be deemed to distribute their earnings to us on an annual basis for federal income tax purposes, regardless of whether such TRSs actually distribute their earnings.

Our taxable income may substantially exceed our net income as determined by GAAP because, for example, realized capital losses will be deducted in determining our GAAP net income but may not be deductible in computing our taxable income. In addition, we may invest in assets that generate taxable income in excess of economic income or in advance of the corresponding cash flow from the assets, referred to as phantom income. Although some types of phantom income are excluded to the extent they exceed 5% of our REIT taxable income in determining the 90% distribution requirement, we will incur corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax with respect to any phantom income items if we do not distribute those items on an annual basis. As a result, we may generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year. It is also possible that a loss that we treat as an ordinary loss would be recharacterized as a capital loss. In such event we might have to pay tax for the year in question or pay a deficiency dividend so that we meet the dividends paid requirement for that year. In all such events, we may be required to use cash reserves, incur debt, or liquidate non-cash assets at rates or times that we regard as unfavorable in order to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax in that year.

If we make distributions in excess of our current and accumulated earnings and profits, they will be treated as a return of capital, which will reduce the adjusted basis of your stock. To the extent such distributions exceed your adjusted basis, you may recognize a capital gain upon distribution.

Unless you are a tax-exempt entity, distributions that we make to you generally will be subject to tax as ordinary income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits as determined for federal income tax purposes. If the amount we distribute to you exceeds your allocable share of our current and accumulated earnings and profits, the excess will be treated as a return of capital to the extent of your adjusted basis in your stock, which will reduce your basis in your stock but will not be subject to tax. To the extent the amount we distribute to you exceeds both your allocable share of our current and accumulated earnings and profits and your adjusted basis, this excess amount will be treated as a gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset. For risks related to the use of uninvested offering proceeds or borrowings to fund distributions to stockholders, see - “Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure. - We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and we cannot assure you of our ability to make distributions in the future.”

Our ownership of and relationship with our TRSs will be limited and a failure to comply with the limits would jeopardize our REIT qualification and may result in the application of a 100% excise tax.

A REIT may own up to 100% of the securities of one or more TRSs. A TRS may earn specified types of income or hold specified assets that would not be qualifying income or assets if earned or held directly by the parent REIT. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. A corporation of which a TRS directly or indirectly owns more than 35% of the voting power or value of the stock will automatically be treated as a TRS. Overall, no more than 20% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRSs. A TRS will pay federal, state and local income tax at regular corporate rates on any income that it earns, whether or not it distributes that income to us. In addition, the TRS rules limit the deductibility of interest paid or accrued by a TRS to its parent REIT to assure that the TRS is subject to an appropriate level of corporate taxation. The rules also impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis.

XAN RE TRS will pay federal, state and local income tax on its taxable income, and its after-tax net income is available for distribution to us but is not required to be distributed to us. Income that is not distributed to us by our U.S. TRS will not be subject to the REIT 90% distribution requirement and therefore will not be available for distributions to our stockholders. We anticipate that the aggregate value of the securities we hold in our TRS will be less than 20% of the value of our total assets, including our TRS security. We will monitor the compliance of our investments in TRSs with the rules relating to value of assets and transactions not on an arm’s-length basis. We cannot assure you, however, that we will be able to comply with such rules.

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

The REIT provisions of the Code substantially limit our ability to hedge MBS and related borrowings. Under these provisions, our annual gross income from qualifying and non-qualifying hedges of our borrowings, together with any other income not generated from qualifying real estate assets, cannot exceed 25% of our gross income. In addition, our aggregate gross income from non-qualifying hedges, fees and certain other non-qualifying sources cannot exceed 5% of our annual gross income determined without regard to income from qualifying hedges. As a result, we might have to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through XAN RE TRS. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear.

(Back to Index)

30

(Back to Index)

The tax on prohibited transactions will limit our ability to engage in transactions, including certain methods of securitizing mortgage loans that would be treated as sales for federal income tax purposes.

A REIT’s net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property, other than foreclosure property, but including mortgage loans, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to this tax if we were able to sell or securitize loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the loans for federal income tax purposes. Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of loans and may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions even though such sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us.

Legislative, regulatory or administrative changes could adversely affect our stockholders or us.

Legislative, regulatory or administrative changes could be enacted or promulgated at any time, either prospectively or with retroactive effect, and may adversely affect our stockholders and/or us.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, made significant changes to the U.S. federal income tax rules for taxation of individuals and corporations, generally effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. In addition to reducing corporate and individual tax rates, the TCJA eliminates or restricts various deductions. Most of the changes applicable to individuals are temporary and apply only to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026. The TCJA makes numerous large and small changes to the tax rules that do not affect the REIT qualification rules directly but may otherwise affect us or our stockholders.

While the changes in the TCJA generally appear to be favorable with respect to REITs, the extensive changes to non-REIT provisions in the Code may have unanticipated effects on our stockholders or us. Moreover, Congressional leaders have recognized that the process of adopting extensive tax legislation in a short amount of time without hearings and substantial time for review is likely to have led to drafting errors, issues needing clarification and unintended consequences that will have to be revisited in subsequent tax legislation. At this point, it is not clear if or when Congress will address these issues or when the IRS will issue administrative guidance on the changes made in the TCJA.

We urge you to consult with your own tax advisor with respect to the status of the TCJA and other legislative, regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect on an investment in shares of our common stock.

Dividends paid by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates provided for under current law.

Dividends paid by REITs are generally not eligible for the reduced 15% maximum tax rate for dividends paid to individuals (20% for those with taxable income above certain thresholds that are adjusted annually under current law). The more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause stockholders who are individuals to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stock of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends to which more favorable rates apply, which could reduce the value of the stocks of REITs. However, under the TCJA, regular dividends from REITs are treated as income from a pass-through entity and are eligible for a 20% deduction. As a result, our regular dividends are taxed at 80% of an individual’s marginal tax rate. The current maximum rate is 37% resulting in a maximum tax rate of 29.6%. Dividends from REITs as well as regular corporate dividends will also be subject to a 3.8% Medicare surtax for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income above $200,000 (if single) or $250,000 (if married and filing jointly).

(Back to Index)

31

(Back to Index)

We may lose our REIT qualification or be subject to a penalty tax if the IRS successfully challenges our characterization of income inclusions from our foreign TRSs.

We likely will be required to include in our income, even without the receipt of actual distributions, earnings from our foreign TRSs, including from our previous investments in CDOs, such as our investment in Apidos CDO I, Ltd., Apidos CDO III, Ltd. and Apidos Cinco CDO. We intend to treat certain of these income inclusions as qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test applicable to REITs but not for purposes of the REIT 75% gross income test. The provisions that set forth what income is qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test provide that gross income derived from dividends, interest and other enumerated classes of passive income qualify for purposes of the 95% gross income test. Income inclusions from equity investments in our foreign TRSs are technically neither dividends nor any of the other enumerated categories of income specified in the 95% gross income test for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and there is no clear precedent with respect to the qualification of such income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests. However, based on advice of counsel, we intend to treat such income inclusions, to the extent distributed by a foreign TRS in the year accrued, as qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test. In addition, in 2011, the IRS issued a private letter ruling to a REIT reaching a result consistent with our treatment. Nevertheless, because this income does not meet the literal requirements of the REIT provisions, it is possible that the IRS could successfully take the position that it is not qualifying income. In the event that it was determined not to qualify for the 95% gross income test, we would be subject to a penalty tax with respect to the income to the extent it and other nonqualifying income exceeds 5% of our gross income and/or we could fail to qualify as a REIT. See “Federal Income Tax Consequences of Our Qualification as a REIT.” In addition, if such income was determined not to qualify for the 95% gross income test, we would need to invest in sufficient qualifying assets, or sell some of our interests in our foreign TRSs to ensure that the income recognized by us from our foreign TRSs or such other corporations does not exceed 5% of our gross income, or cease to qualify as a REIT.

We may lose our REIT qualification or be subject to a penalty tax if we modify mortgage loans or acquire distressed debt in a way that causes us to fail our REIT gross income or asset tests.

Many of the terms of our mortgage loans, mezzanine loans and B-notes and the loans supporting our MBS have been modified and may in the future be modified to avoid foreclosure actions and for other reasons. If the terms of the loan are modified in a manner constituting a “significant modification,” such modification triggers a deemed exchange for tax purposes of the original loan for the modified loan. Under existing Treasury Regulations, if a loan is secured by real property and other property and the highest principal amount of the loan outstanding during a taxable year exceeds the fair market value of the real property securing the loan as of (1) the date we agreed to acquire or originate the loan or (2) in the event of certain significant modifications, the date we modified the loan, then a portion of the interest income from such a loan will not be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, but will be qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test. Although the law is not entirely clear, a portion of the loan may not be treated as a qualifying “real estate asset” for purposes of the 75% asset test. The non-qualifying portion of such a loan would be subject to, among other requirements, the 10% value test.

Revenue Procedure 2011-16, as modified and superseded by Revenue Procedure 2014-51, provides a safe harbor pursuant to which we will not be required to redetermine the fair market value of the real property securing a loan for purposes of the REIT gross income and asset tests in connection with a loan modification that is: (1) occasioned by a borrower default; or (2) made at a time when we reasonably believe that the modification to the loan will substantially reduce a significant risk of default on the original loan. We cannot assure you that all of our loan modifications have qualified or will qualify for the safe harbor in Revenue Procedure 2011-16, as modified and superseded by Revenue Procedure 2014-51. To the extent we significantly modify loans in a manner that does not qualify for that safe harbor, we will be required to redetermine the value of the real property securing the loan at the time it was significantly modified. In determining the value of the real property securing such a loan, we may not obtain third-party appraisals, but rather may rely on internal valuations. No assurance can be provided that the IRS will not successfully challenge our internal valuations. If the terms of our mortgage loans, mezzanine loans and B-notes and loans supporting our MBS are significantly modified in a manner that does not qualify for the safe harbor in Revenue Procedure 2011-16, as modified and superseded by Revenue Procedure 2014-51, and the fair market value of the real property securing such loans has decreased significantly, we could fail the 75% gross income test, the 75% asset test and/or the 10% value test. Unless we qualified for relief under certain cure provisions in the Code, such failures could cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT.

Our subsidiaries and we have invested and may invest in the future in distressed debt, including distressed mortgage loans, mezzanine loans, B-notes and MBS. Revenue Procedure 2011-16, as modified and superseded by Revenue Procedure 2014-51, provides that the IRS will treat a distressed mortgage loan acquired by a REIT that is secured by real property and other property as producing in part non-qualifying income for the 75% gross income test. Specifically, Revenue Procedure 2011-16, as modified and superseded by Revenue Procedure 2014-51, indicates that interest income on a loan will be treated as qualifying income based on the ratio of (1) the fair market value of the real property securing the loan determined as of the date the REIT committed to acquire the loan and (2) the face amount of the loan (and not the purchase price or current value of the loan). The face amount of a distressed mortgage loan and other distressed debt will typically exceed the fair market value of the real property securing the debt on the date the REIT commits to acquire the debt. We believe that we will continue to invest in distressed debt in a manner consistent with complying with the 75% gross income test and maintaining our qualification as a REIT.

(Back to Index)

32

(Back to Index)

The failure of a loan subject to a repurchase agreement, a mezzanine loan or a preferred equity investment to qualify as a real estate asset would adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

We have entered into and we intend to continue to enter into sale and repurchase agreements under which we nominally sell certain of our loan assets to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase the sold assets. We believe that we have been and will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as the owner of the loan assets that are the subject of any such agreement notwithstanding that the agreement may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could assert that we did not own the loan assets during the term of the sale and repurchase agreement, in which case we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

In addition, we have acquired in the past and may continue to acquire mezzanine loans, which are loans secured by equity interest in a partnership or limited liability company that directly or indirectly owns real property, and preferred equity investments, which are senior equity interests in entities that own or acquire real properties. In Revenue Procedure 2003-65, or the Revenue Procedure, the IRS provided a safe harbor pursuant to which a mezzanine loan, if it meets each of the requirements contained in the Revenue Procedure, will be treated by the IRS as a real estate asset for purposes of the REIT asset tests, and interest derived from the mezzanine loan will be treated as qualifying mortgage interest for purposes of the REIT 75% income test. Although the Revenue Procedure provides a safe harbor on which taxpayers may rely, it does not prescribe rules of substantive tax law. We have acquired and may continue to acquire mezzanine loans that may not meet all of the requirements for reliance on this safe harbor. In the event we own a mezzanine loan that does not meet the safe harbor, the IRS could challenge the loan’s treatment as a real estate asset for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests, and if the challenge were sustained, we could fail to qualify as a REIT.