Item 1A. Risk Factors
You should carefully consider the risks described below together with the other information included in this quarterly report. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected by any of these risks. If any of these risks occur, the value of our common stock could decline.
Risks Related to Our Business
The recent outbreak of COVID-19 has adversely affected, and will likely continue to adversely affect, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
We believe the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected our business and is likely to continue to do so. The outbreak has caused significant volatility and disruption in the financial markets both globally and in the United States. If COVID-19, or another highly infectious or contagious disease, continues to spread or the response to contain it is unsuccessful, we could experience material adverse effects on our business, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations. The extent of such effects will depend on future developments which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including the geographic spread of the virus, the overall severity of the disease, the duration of the outbreak, the measures that have been or may be taken by various governmental authorities in response to the outbreak (such as quarantines, travel restrictions and mandated forbearance measures on mortgage collections) and the possible further impacts on the global economy. The continued spread of COVID–19 could also negatively impact the availability of key personnel necessary to conduct our business. Additionally, governments have adopted, and we expect will continue to adopt, policies, laws and plans intended to address the COVID-19 pandemic and adverse developments in the credit, financial and mortgage markets. These programs will be effective, sufficient or otherwise may have a positive material and adverse impact on our business.
A significant portion of our mortgage loans may become NPLs, which could increase our risk of loss.
We may acquire mortgage loans where the borrower has failed to make timely payments of principal and/or interest currently or in the past. As part of the mortgage loan portfolios we purchase, we also may acquire performing loans that subsequently become non-performing. Under current market conditions, many of these loans will have current loan-to-value ratios in excess of 100%, meaning the amount owed on the loan exceeds the value of the underlying real estate. Although we expect to purchase loans at significant discounts to UPB and underlying property value, if actual results are different from our assumptions in determining the prices for such loans, particularly if the market value of the underlying property decreases significantly, we may incur significant losses. There are no limits on the percentage of NPLs we may hold. Any loss we incur may be significant and could materially and adversely affect us.
We primarily own higher risk loans, which are more expensive to service than conventional mortgage loans.
A significant percentage of the mortgage loans we own are higher risk loans, meaning that the loans are made to less creditworthy borrowers or for properties the value of which has decreased, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. These loans are more expensive to service because they require more frequent interaction with customers and greater monitoring and oversight. Additionally, in connection with mortgage market reforms and recent and possible future regulatory developments, servicers of higher risk loans may be subject to increased scrutiny by state and U.S. federal regulators or may experience higher compliance costs, which could result in a further increase in servicing costs. Through the Servicing Agreement, the Servicer passes along to us many of the additional third-party expenses incurred by it in servicing these higher risk loans. The greater cost of servicing higher risk loans, which may be further increased through regulatory changes, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
A change in delinquencies for the loans we own could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Delinquency rates have a significant impact on our revenues and expenses of our mortgage loans as follows:
•Revenue. Increased delinquencies generate higher ancillary fees to the loan servicer, which fees are recoverable, if at all, in the event that the related loan is liquidated prior to payment of the interest on the loan or MBS that we own.
•Expenses. An increase in delinquencies will result in a higher cost to service due to the increased time and effort required to collect payments from delinquent borrowers. The cost of servicing an increasingly delinquent mortgage loan portfolio may rise without a corresponding increase in revenue because of increased third-party cost reimbursements such as property taxes and insurance.
An increase in delinquency rates could therefore adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Moreover, a significant percentage of the mortgage loans we own are higher risk loans, which tend to have higher delinquency and default rates than GSE and government agency-insured mortgage loans. These higher risk loans, combined with decreases in property values, have caused increases in loan-to-value ratios, resulting in borrowers having little or negative equity in their property, which may provide an incentive to borrowers to strategically default on their loans. Recent laws delay the initiation or completion of foreclosure proceedings on specified types of residential mortgage loans or otherwise limit the ability of mortgage servicers to take actions that may be essential to preserve the value of the mortgage loans. Any such limitations are likely to cause delayed or reduced collections from mortgagors.
The lack of liquidity of our assets may adversely affect our business, including our ability to sell our assets.
We acquire assets, securities or other instruments that are not liquid or publicly traded, and market conditions could significantly and negatively affect the liquidity of other assets.
In addition, mortgage-related assets generally experience periods of illiquidity, including periods of delinquencies and defaults with respect to residential and commercial mortgage loans. Further, validating third-party pricing for illiquid assets may be more subjective than for liquid assets. Any illiquidity of our assets may make it difficult for us to sell such assets if the need or desire arises. In addition, 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 previously recorded our assets. We may also face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate any assets for which we have or could be attributed with material non-public information. If we are unable to sell our assets at favorable prices or at all, it could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Assets that are illiquid are more difficult to finance, and to the extent that we use leverage to finance assets that become illiquid, we may lose that leverage or have it reduced. Assets tend to become less liquid during times of financial stress, which is often the time that liquidity is most needed. As a result, our ability to sell assets or vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be limited by liquidity constraints, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
The principal and interest payments on our retained MBS are not guaranteed by any entity and, therefore, are subject to increased risks, including credit risk as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
We create and retain MBS that are backed by residential mortgage loans that do not conform to the Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac underwriting guidelines. Consequently, the principal and interest on those MBS are not guaranteed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or securitized through Ginnie Mae. We do not currently expect to acquire third-party non-Agency MBS. Our MBS are and will be subject to many of the risks of the respective underlying mortgage loans. In particular, the market for MBS has been, and is expected to continue to be, significantly and adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. A residential mortgage loan is typically secured by a single-family residential property and is subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property depends upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, a prolonged economic downturn, unemployment, acts of God, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances, may impair borrowers’ abilities to repay their mortgage loans. In periods following home price declines, “strategic defaults” (decisions by borrowers to default on their mortgage loans despite having the ability to pay) also may become more prevalent.
In the event of defaults under mortgage loans backing any of our retained MBS, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan. Additionally, in the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower 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. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan. If borrowers default on the mortgage loans backing our MBS and we are unable to recover any resulting loss through the
foreclosure process, our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected.
Residential mortgage loan modification, refinance, or forbearance programs, future legislative action, and other actions and changes in the general economy may materially and adversely affect the supply of, value of, and returns on RPLs and NPLs.
Our business model depends on the acquisition of a steady supply of RPLs, our ability to support continued performance by borrowers under RPLs, the success of our loan modification and other resolution efforts and to a certain extent, the conversion of a portion of those loans to REO that we can then sell or rent. The number of RPLs available for purchase may be reduced by uncertainty in the lending industry and the governmental sector and/or as a result of general economic conditions. Lenders have delayed foreclosure proceedings, offered payment forbearance, renegotiated interest rates, or refinanced loans for borrowers who face foreclosure.
In addition, as a reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak, the U.S. federal government has instituted and may continue to institute programs aimed at assisting at-risk homeowners, or reducing the number of properties going into foreclosure or going into non-performing status. Government sponsored or mandated loss mitigation programs may involve, among other things, the modification of residential mortgage loans to reduce the principal amount of the loans (through forbearance and/or forgiveness) and/or the rate of interest payable on the loans or to extend the payment terms of the loans. For example, section 4022 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (or the “CARES Act”), requires that for a limited period of time, and upon a request by a borrower with a federally backed mortgage loan who is experiencing a COVID–19-related financial hardship, the servicer of the borrower’s loan must grant the borrower a forbearance for up to 180 days (or longer if the borrower requests an extension). Certain states have imposed or encouraged similar forbearance programs, or may do so in the future. These programs, any other programs that may replace them, future legislative or regulatory actions, including possible amendments to the bankruptcy laws that result in the modification of outstanding residential mortgage loans, as well as changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for refinancing residential mortgage loans, may materially and adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, our portfolio of RPLs and NPLs.
Other governmental actions may affect our business by hindering the pace of foreclosures. Certain jurisdictions suffer from a backlog of foreclosures, due to a combination of volume constraints and legal actions, including those brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), State Attorneys General, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Reserve Board against mortgage servicers alleging wrongful foreclosure practices. Legal claims brought or threatened by the DOJ, HUD, CFPB and State Attorneys General against residential mortgage servicers have produced large settlements. A portion of the funds from these settlements were directed to homeowners seeking to avoid foreclosure through mortgage modifications, and servicers are required to adopt specified measures to reduce mortgage obligations in certain situations. We expect that the settlements will help many homeowners avoid foreclosures that would otherwise have occurred. It is also possible that other residential mortgage servicers will agree to similar settlements. In addition, the U.S. Congress and numerous state legislatures have considered, proposed or adopted legislation to constrain foreclosures, or may do so in the future. These developments will reduce the number of homes in the process of foreclosure and decrease the supply of properties and assets that meet our investment criteria.
The Dodd-Frank Act also created the CFPB, which supervises consumer financial services companies (including bank and non-bank mortgage lenders and mortgage servicers) and enforces U.S. federal consumer protection laws as they apply to banks, credit unions and other financial services companies, including mortgage servicers, and which has issued many regulations regarding mortgage origination and servicing. These regulations provide for special remedies in favor of consumer mortgage borrowers, particularly upon default and foreclosure. It remains uncertain whether any of these measures significantly affect foreclosure volumes. If foreclosure volumes were to decline significantly, we may experience difficulty in finding target assets at attractive prices, which will materially and adversely affect us. Also, the number of families seeking rental housing might be reduced by such legislation, reducing rental housing demand for properties that we may seek to rent in our markets.
The supply of RPLs and SBCs may decline over time as a result of higher credit standards for new loans and the prices for RPLs and SBCs may increase, which could materially and adversely affect us.
As a result of the continuing effects of the economic crisis in 2008, there has been an increased supply of RPLs available for sale. However, in response to the economic crisis, the origination of jumbo, subprime, Alt-A and second-lien residential mortgage loans has dramatically declined as lenders have increased their standards of creditworthiness in originating new loans and fewer homeowners may go into NPL status on their residential mortgage loans. Lenders may continue to rely on heightened credit standards, in light of the economic effects of the COVID-19 crisis or other crises. In addition, the prices at which both residential and SBC RPL loans can be acquired may increase due to the entry of new participants into the distressed loan marketplace or a smaller supply of RPL loans in the marketplace. For these reasons, along with the continuing slow rate of
general improvement in the economy, the supply of RPL loans that we may acquire may decline over time, which could materially and adversely affect us.
The SBC loans we expect to acquire will be subject to the ability of the commercial property owner to generate net income from operating the property as well as the increased risks of delinquency and foreclosure.
The ability of a commercial mortgage borrower to repay a SBC loan secured by an income-producing property, such as a multi-family residential and commercial mixed use retail/residential property, typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of such 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 SBC loan may be impaired. Net operating income of an income producing property can be affected by, among other things, tenant mix, success of tenant businesses, property management decisions, property location and condition, competition from comparable types of properties, changes in laws that increase operating expense, limit rents that may be charged, or that restrict eviction and replacement of nonpaying tenants, any need to address environmental contamination at the property, the occurrence of any uninsured casualty at the property, changes in national, regional or local economic conditions or specific industry segments, declines in regional or local real estate values, declines in regional or local rental or occupancy rates, increases in interest rates, real estate tax rates and other operating expenses, changes in governmental rules, regulations and fiscal policies, including environmental legislation, acts of God, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances. In particular, the number of commercial property delinquencies and foreclosures has, and is expected to continue to, significantly increased as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the event of the bankruptcy of a commercial mortgage loan borrower, the SBC loan to such borrower 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 SBC 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. Foreclosure of a SBC loan can be an expensive and lengthy process, which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed SBC loan.
Our SBC loans in respect of smaller multi-family residential properties or smaller mixed use retail/residential properties may be subject to defaults, foreclosure timeline extension, fraud, commercial price depreciation and unfavorable modification of loan principal amount, interest rate and amortization of principal.
Our SBC loans secured by multi-family or commercial property may be subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risk of loss that may be greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential property. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically depends primarily upon the successful operation of such 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 may be impaired. Net operating income of an income-producing property can be affected by, among other things:
•tenant mix;
•success of tenant businesses;
•property management decisions;
•property location and condition;
•competition from comparable types of properties;
•changes in laws that increase operating expenses or limit rents that may be charged;
•any need to address environmental contamination at the property or the occurrence of any uninsured casualty at the property;
•changes in national, regional or local economic conditions and/or specific industry segments;
•declines in regional or local real estate values;
•declines in regional or local rental or occupancy rates;
•increases in interest rates;
•real estate tax rates and other operating expenses;
•changes in governmental rules, regulations and fiscal policies, including environmental legislation; and
•acts of God, terrorist attacks, social unrest and civil disturbances.
Difficult conditions in the mortgage, residential real estate and smaller commercial real estate markets as well as general market concerns may adversely affect the value of the assets in which we invest and these conditions may persist for the foreseeable future.
Our business is materially affected by conditions in the residential mortgage market, the residential real estate market, the smaller commercial real estate market, the financial markets and the economy in general. Concerns about the residential mortgage market, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation, energy costs, geopolitical issues, concerns over the
creditworthiness of governments worldwide and the stability of the global banking system, continuing relatively high unemployment and under-employment and the availability and cost of credit have contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy and markets going forward. In particular, the residential mortgage market in the United States has experienced a variety of difficulties and changed economic conditions, including defaults, credit losses and liquidity concerns. The smaller commercial real estate mortgage market also may face increased defaults, losses, or liquidity concerns due to economic conditions or government imposed forbearance programs.
Certain commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies continue to announce losses from exposure to the residential mortgage market. These factors have affected investor perception of the risk associated with mortgage-backed securities, other real estate-related securities and various other asset classes in which we may invest. As a result, values of certain of our assets and the asset classes in which we intend to invest have experienced volatility. Further deterioration of the mortgage market and investor perception of the risks associated with MBS we may retain as part of our securitizations, as well as other assets that we acquire could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
We may be materially and adversely affected by risks affecting borrowers or the single-family rental properties in which our investments may be concentrated at any given time, as well as from unfavorable changes in the related geographic regions.
Our assets are not subject to any geographic, diversification or concentration limitations. Accordingly, our investment portfolio may be concentrated by geography, single-family rental property characteristics and/or borrower demographics, increasing the risk of loss to us if the particular concentration in our portfolio is subject to greater risks or undergoing adverse developments. In addition, adverse conditions in the areas where the properties securing or otherwise underlying our investments are located (including business layoffs or downsizing, industry slowdowns, changing demographics and other factors) and local real estate conditions (such as oversupply or reduced demand) may have an adverse effect on the value of our investments. A material decline in the demand for single-family housing or rentals in these or other areas where we own assets may materially and adversely affect us. Lack of diversification can increase the correlation of non-performance and foreclosure risks among our investments. Historically, our mortgage and real estate assets have been concentrated in Florida and the western and southwestern United States.
Changes in the underwriting standards by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae or FHA could make it more difficult to refinance our purchased mortgage loans.
Stricter underwriting standards by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae or the FHA could affect our ability to refinance mortgage loans and the terms on which mortgage loans may be refinanced, which may adversely affect our business and results of operations. For example, in 2010, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae announced tighter underwriting guidelines, particularly for adjustable rate mortgages, (“ARMS”), and hybrid interest-only ARMs (“Hybrid ARMs”). Specifically, Freddie Mac announced that it would no longer purchase interest-only mortgages and Fannie Mae changed its eligibility criteria for purchasing and securitizing ARMs to protect consumers from potentially dramatic payment increases. If Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, or the FHA were to adopt other restrictive underwriting standards, that could affect our ability to refinance loans and the terms of those loans.
The whole residential mortgage loans and other residential mortgage assets in which we invest are subject to risk of default, among other risks.
The mortgage loans and other mortgage-related assets that we acquire from time to time may be subject to defaults (including re-default for RPLs), foreclosure moratoria or timeline extensions, fraud, residential price depreciation and unfavorable modification of loan principal amount, interest rate and amortization of principal, or government mandated payment forbearances, among other factors, which could result in losses to us. Residential mortgage loans are secured by single-family residential property and, are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss. The payment of the principal and interest on the mortgage loans we acquire would not typically be guaranteed by any sponsored enterprise (“GSE”), such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or securitized through Ginnie Mae or any other governmental agency. Additionally, by directly acquiring whole mortgage loans, we do not receive the structural credit enhancements that can benefit senior tranches of MBS. A whole mortgage loan is directly exposed to losses resulting from nonpayment or other default. Therefore, the value of the underlying property, the creditworthiness and financial position of the borrower and the priority and enforceability of the lien will significantly affect the value of such mortgage. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property typically depends upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors, including a general economic downturn, acts of nature, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances, may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a mortgage loan. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process, which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on a foreclosed mortgage loan. In the event of a foreclosure, we may assume direct
ownership of the underlying real estate. The liquidation proceeds upon sale of such real estate may not be sufficient to recover our cost basis in the loan, and any costs or delays involved in the foreclosure or liquidation process may increase losses.
Whole mortgage loans are also subject to “special hazard” risk such as property damage caused by hazards, such as earthquakes or environmental hazards, not covered by standard property insurance policies. In the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower 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. In addition, claims may be assessed against us on account of our position as a mortgage holder or property owner, including assignee liability, responsibility for tax payments, environmental hazards and other liabilities. In some cases, these liabilities may be “recourse liabilities” or may otherwise lead to losses in excess of the purchase price of the related mortgage or property. Although we acquire mortgage loans at significant discounts from their UPB and underlying property value, in the event of any default under a mortgage loan held directly by us, we bear a risk of loss of the principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan, which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations and results of operations. The MBS we retain from our own securitizations evidence interests in, or are secured by, pools of residential mortgage loans. Accordingly, the MBS that we hold is subject to all of the risks of the respective underlying mortgage loans.
For certain residential mortgage loans, the Dodd-Frank Act established, through amendment to TILA, life-of-loan liability on any holder of a residential mortgage loan that takes action on the loan following default (including foreclosure). This liability is premised upon violation of the ATR Rule, as well as violation of the loan originator compensation rule. Borrower remedies, available by way of recoupment or set-off, include statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.
If we fail to develop, enhance and implement strategies to adapt to changing conditions in the commercial real estate industry and capital markets, our financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected by our acquisition of SBC loans.
The manner in which we compete and the types of SBC loans we are able to acquire will be affected by changing conditions resulting from sudden changes in the commercial real estate industry, regulatory environment, the role of credit rating agencies or their rating criteria or process, or the U.S. and global economies generally. If we do not effectively respond to these changes, or if our strategies to respond to these changes are not successful, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected. In addition, we can provide no assurances that we will be successful in executing our business strategy in successfully acquiring SBC loans.
If we acquire and subsequently re-sell any whole mortgage loans, we may be required to repurchase such loans or indemnify investors if we breach representations and warranties.
If we acquire and subsequently re-sell any whole mortgage loans, we would generally be required to make customary representations and warranties about such loans to the loan purchaser. Our residential mortgage loan sale agreements and terms of any securitizations into which we sell loans will generally require us to repurchase or substitute loans in the event we breach a representation or warranty given to the loan purchaser. In addition, we may be required to repurchase loans as a result of borrower fraud or in the event of early payment default on a mortgage loan. Repurchased loans are typically worth only a fraction of the original price. Significant repurchase activity could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Further, depending on the level of repurchase and resale activities, we may determine to conduct any such activities through a taxable REIT subsidiary.
We are subject to counterparty risk and may be unable to seek indemnity or require our counterparties to repurchase mortgage loans if they breach representations and warranties, which could cause us to suffer losses.
When selling mortgage loans, sellers typically make customary representations and warranties about such loans. Our residential mortgage loan purchase agreements may entitle us to seek indemnity or demand repurchase or substitution of the loans in the event our counterparty breaches a representation or warranty given to us. However, there can be no assurance that our mortgage loan purchase agreements will contain appropriate representations and warranties, that we will be able to enforce our contractual right to repurchase or substitution, or that our counterparty will remain solvent or otherwise be able to honor its obligations under its mortgage loan purchase agreements. Our inability to obtain indemnity or require repurchase of a significant number of loans could harm our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Certain investments in portfolios of whole mortgage loans and other mortgage assets may require us to purchase less desirable mortgage assets as part of an otherwise desirable pool of mortgage assets, which could subject us to additional risks relating to the less desirable mortgage assets.
If we acquire portfolios of whole mortgage loans and other mortgage assets, the portfolio may contain some assets that we would not otherwise seek to acquire on their own. These other assets may subject us to additional risks. Acquisition of less desirable mortgage assets may impair our performance and reduce the return on our investments.
To the extent that due diligence is conducted on potential assets, such due diligence may not reveal all of the risks associated with such assets and may not reveal other weaknesses in such assets, which could lead to losses.
Before making an investment, we conduct (either directly or using third parties) certain due diligence. There can be no assurance that we will conduct any specific level of due diligence, or that, among other things, our due diligence processes will uncover all relevant facts or that any purchase will be successful, which could result in losses on these assets, which, in turn, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
The failure of a seller of mortgage loans to provide all the necessary documentation to us could adversely affect our ability to leverage our assets or otherwise service the mortgage loans that we will own.
Pursuant to customary provisions in the purchase agreements governing our loan acquisitions, we also generally have the right to cause the sellers to repurchase certain loans if they do not provide proper documentation to evidence ownership or first lien status with respect to such loans within a specified time period. Any delay or inability to obtain such documentation could adversely affect our ability to leverage such loans, and could adversely affect the Servicer’s ability to service those mortgage loans and any such repurchases by the sellers would decrease the size of our portfolio.
Market conditions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors may affect our ability to securitize assets, which could increase our financing costs and adversely affect our results of operations and ability to make distributions.
Our ability to obtain permanent non-recourse financing through securitizations is affected by a number of factors, including:
•conditions in the securities markets, generally;
•conditions in the asset-backed securities markets, specifically;
•yields on our portfolio of mortgage loans;
•the credit quality of our portfolio of mortgage loans; and
•our ability to obtain any necessary credit enhancement.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the asset-backed securitization markets have experienced unprecedented disruptions, and securitization volumes have decreased sharply. These recent conditions in the securitization markets include reduced liquidity, increased risk premiums for issuers, reduced investor demand, financial distress among financial guaranty insurance providers, a general tightening of credit and substantial regulatory uncertainty. If these conditions do not improve, they could increase our cost of funding, and could reduce or even eliminate our access to the securitization market. As a result, these conditions could preclude us from securitizing assets acquired for such purpose.
Our ability to sell mortgage loans into securitizations could also be delayed, limited, or precluded by legislative and regulatory reforms applicable to asset-backed securities and the institutions that sponsor, service, rate, or otherwise participate in, or contribute to, the successful execution of a securitization transaction. Other factors could also limit, delay, or preclude our ability to sell assets into securitizations. Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have required significant revisions to the legal and regulatory framework that apply to the asset-backed securities markets and securitizations. For example, Section 15G of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as modified by the Dodd-Frank Act, generally requires the issuer of asset-backed securities to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of the assets collateralizing the asset-backed securities. While Section 15G includes an exemption for asset-backed securities that are collateralized exclusively by residential mortgages that qualify as “qualified residential mortgages” (as defined in the accompanying regulations), RPLs of the type that we intend to purchase and securitize generally will not qualify for this exemption. We therefore are required to retain five percent or more of the credit risk associated with the assets we securitize.
In addition to these laws and rules, other U.S. federal or state laws and regulations that could affect our ability to sell assets into securitization programs may be proposed, enacted, or implemented. These laws and regulations could effectively
preclude us from financing our assets through securitizations or could delay our execution of these types of transactions. Other matters, such as (i) accounting standards applicable to securitization transactions and (ii) capital and leverage requirements applicable to banks and other regulated financial institutions that traditionally purchase and hold asset-backed securities, could also result in less investor demand for securities issued through securitization transactions.
Prepayment rates can change, adversely affecting the performance of our assets and our ability to reinvest the proceeds thereof.
The frequency at which prepayments (including voluntary prepayments by borrowers, loan buyouts and liquidations due to defaults and foreclosures) occur on mortgage loans, including those underlying MBS, is affected by a variety of factors, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, prevailing level of interest rates as well as economic, demographic, tax, social, legal, and other factors. We expect prepayments rates to decrease as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Generally, borrowers tend to prepay their mortgages when prevailing mortgage rates fall below the interest rates on their mortgage loans. When borrowers prepay their mortgage loans at rates that are faster or slower than expected, it results in prepayments that are faster or slower than expected on the mortgage loans and any related MBS. These faster or slower than expected payments may adversely affect our profitability, although the effects vary because upon prepayment we can receive 100% of the remaining UPB that we had purchased at a significant discount.
We may purchase loans that have a higher interest rate than the then prevailing market interest rate. In exchange for this higher interest rate, we may pay a premium to par value to acquire the loan. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, we amortize this premium over the expected term of the security or loan based on our prepayment assumptions or its contractual terms, depending on the type of loan or security purchased. If a loan is prepaid in whole or in part at a faster than its expected rate or contractual term (as applicable), we must expense all or a part of the remaining unamortized portion of the premium that was paid at the time of the purchase, which will adversely affect our profitability.
We also may purchase securities or loans that have a lower interest rate than the then prevailing market interest rate. In exchange for this lower interest rate, we may pay a discount to par value to acquire the loan. We accrete this discount over the expected term of the loan based on our prepayment assumptions or its contractual terms, depending on the type of loan or security purchased. If a loan is prepaid at a slower than expected rate, however, we must accrete the remaining portion of the discount at a slower than expected rate. This will extend the expected life of investment portfolio and result in a lower than expected yield on loans purchased at a discount to par.
Prepayment rates generally increase when interest rates fall and decrease when interest rates rise, but changes in prepayment rates are difficult to predict. Prepayments can also occur when borrowers sell the property and use the sale proceeds to prepay the mortgage as part of a physical relocation or when borrowers default on their mortgages and the mortgages are prepaid from the proceeds of a foreclosure sale of the property. The GSE guidelines for repurchasing delinquent loans from MBS trusts and changes in such guidelines also affect prepayment rates. Consequently, prepayment rates also may be affected by conditions in the housing and financial markets, which may result in increased delinquencies on mortgage loans, cost of capital, general economic conditions and the relative interest rates on fixed and adjustable rate loans, which could lead to an acceleration of the payment of the related principal.
The adverse effects of prepayments may affect us in various ways. Particular investments may underperform relative to any hedges that we may have constructed for these assets, resulting in a loss to us. Furthermore, to the extent that faster prepayment rates are due to lower interest rates, the principal payments received from prepayments will tend to be reinvested in lower-yielding assets, which may reduce our income in the long run. Therefore, if actual prepayment rates differ from anticipated prepayment rates, our business, financial condition and results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected.
Slower prepayments may result in lower yields, current period income and cash collections as payments of interest and principal may be collected over a longer time period. While total cash collection may be higher than anticipated over the life of the loan, current period operating results could be adversely impacted.
The real estate assets and real estate-related assets we invest in are subject to the risks associated with real property.
We own real estate directly as well as assets that are secured by real estate. Real estate assets are subject to various risks, including:
•declines in the value of real estate, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;
•acts of nature, including earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters, which may result in uninsured losses;
•acts of war or terrorism, including the consequences of terrorist attacks, such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001;
•adverse changes in national and local economic and market conditions;
•changes in governmental laws and regulations, fiscal policies and zoning ordinances and the related costs of compliance with laws and regulations, fiscal policies and ordinances;
•costs of remediation and liabilities associated with environmental conditions such as indoor mold; and
•the potential for uninsured or under-insured property losses.
We expect the value of U.S. real estate to significantly decline in urban areas as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The occurrence of any of the foregoing or similar events may reduce our return from an affected property or asset and, consequently, materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
We are subject to risks of loss from weather conditions, man-made or natural disasters and climate change.
Weather conditions and man-made or natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, droughts, fires and other environmental conditions can damage properties that we own or that collateralize our loans. If properties collateralizing our mortgage loans incur damages that reduce the value of the collateral to an amount below the UPB of our loan, borrowers may cease making payments to us on those loans, and any foreclosure efforts may recover substantially less value than the amount we are due or no value at all. Because we seek to build concentrations of mortgage loans and real properties in certain markets, we may be particularly vulnerable to the impact of a localized weather condition, man-made or natural disaster or effects of climate change. Any of these events could adversely impact the demand for, and value of, our assets and could also directly impact the value of our assets through damage, destruction or loss, and could thereafter materially impact the availability or cost of insurance to protect against these events. Although we believe the properties collateralizing our mortgage loans and our remaining owned real estate are adequately covered by insurance, we cannot predict if we or our borrowers will be able to obtain appropriate coverage at a reasonable cost in the future, or if we will be able to continue to pass along all of the costs of insurance to our tenants. Any weather conditions, man-made or natural disasters or effects of climate change, whether or not insured, could have a material adverse effect on our financial performance, the market price of our common shares and our ability to pay dividends. In addition, there is a risk that one or more of our property insurers may not be able to fulfill their obligations with respect to claims payments due to deterioration in their financial condition driven by such events.
Investments in second-lien mortgage loans could subject us to increased risk of losses.
We invest in second-lien mortgage loans or create securitizations with MBS backed by such loans. If a borrower defaults on a second lien mortgage loan or on its senior debt (i.e., a first-lien loan in the case of a residential mortgage loan), or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, such loan will be satisfied only after all senior debt is paid in full. As a result, if we invest in second-lien mortgage loans and the borrower defaults, we may lose all or a significant part of our investment.
The allocation of capital among our mortgage loans may vary, which may adversely affect our financial performance.
In executing our business plan, we regularly consider the allocation of capital between residential mortgage loans, SBC loans and REO. The allocation of capital may vary due to market conditions, the expected relative return on equity of each, the judgment of our Manager, the demand in the marketplace for certain mortgage loans and REO and the availability of specific investment opportunities. We also consider the availability and cost of our likely sources of capital. If we fail to appropriately allocate capital and resources across mortgage loans or fail to optimize our acquisition and capital raising opportunities, our financial performance may be adversely affected.
Our use of models in connection with the valuation of our assets and determination of the timing and amount of cash flows expected to be collected subjects us to potential risks in the event that such models are incorrect, misleading or based on incomplete information.
As part of the risk management process, we use our Manager’s detailed proprietary models to evaluate, depending on the asset class, house price appreciation and depreciation by county, region, prepayment speeds and foreclosure frequency, cost and timing. Models and data are used to value assets or potential assets, assess the timing and amount of cash flows expected to be collected, and may also be used in connection with any hedging of our acquisitions. Many of the models are based on historical trends. These trends may not be indicative of future results. Furthermore, the assumptions underlying the models may prove to be inaccurate, causing the models to also be incorrect. In the event models and data prove to be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon expose us to potential risks. For example, by relying on incorrect models
and data, especially valuation or cash flow models, we may be induced to buy certain assets at prices that are too high, to sell certain other assets at prices that are too low, overestimate the timing or amount of cash flows expected to be collected, underestimate the timing or amount of cash flows expected to be collected, or to miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging based on faulty models and data may prove to be unsuccessful.
Valuations of some of our assets will be inherently uncertain, may be based on estimates, may fluctuate over short periods of time and may differ from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these assets existed.
While in some cases our determination of the fair value of our assets will be based on valuations provided by third-party dealers and pricing services, we will value most of our assets using unobservable inputs based upon our judgment, and such valuations may differ from those provided by third-party dealers and pricing services. Valuations of certain assets are often difficult to obtain or unreliable. In general, dealers and pricing services heavily disclaim their valuations. Additionally, dealers may claim to furnish valuations only as an accommodation and without special compensation, and so they may disclaim any and all liability for any direct, incidental or consequential damages arising out of any inaccuracy or incompleteness in valuations, including any act of negligence or breach of any warranty. Depending on the complexity and illiquidity of an asset, valuations of the same asset can vary substantially from one dealer or pricing service to another. The valuation process has been particularly difficult recently because market events have made valuations of certain assets unpredictable, and the disparity of valuations provided by third-party dealers has widened.
Our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected if our fair value measurements of these assets were materially higher than the values that would exist if a ready market existed for these assets.
An increase in interest rates may cause a decrease in the amount of certain of our target assets that are available for acquisition, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire target assets that satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and pay dividends.
Rising interest rates generally reduce the demand for mortgage loans due to the higher cost of borrowing. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans originated may affect the amount of target assets available to us for acquisition, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives. Rising interest rates may also cause our target assets that were issued prior to an interest rate increase to provide yields that are below prevailing market interest rates. If rising interest rates cause us to be unable to acquire a sufficient volume of our target assets with a yield that is above our borrowing cost, our ability to satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and pay dividends may be materially and adversely affected.
An increase in interest rates may cause a decrease in the ability of our borrowers to refinance their existing mortgages, and may cause additional economic distress for borrowers with mortgages subject to changes in interest rates, causing our cash collections to decrease, and our anticipated resolution timelines to increase.
Rising interest rates may reduce the desirability of refinancing existing mortgages by increasing a borrower’s monthly payments. Rising interest rates may also cause economic distress to borrowers with mortgage terms that subject them to market-based increases in interest rates. Consequently borrowers who might otherwise have refinanced their mortgages may not be able to do so on favorable terms. And borrowers with interest-rate sensitive mortgages may experience payment increases that preclude their ability to makes such payments in a timely manner, if at all. As a result, the duration of our resolution timelines may be extended, with an associated negative impact in our cash collections and /or our earnings.
The Servicer’s operations are heavily regulated at the U.S. federal, state and local levels and its failure to comply with applicable regulations could materially adversely affect our expenses and results of operations, and there is no assurance that we could replace the Servicer with servicers that satisfy our requirements or with whom we could enter into agreements on satisfactory terms.
In January 2018, we acquired a 4.9% equity interest in the parent company of our Servicer which increased to 8.0% in May 2018, and we also own warrants to purchase additional equity interests. The Servicer must comply with a wide array of U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations that regulate, among other things, the manner in which it services our mortgage loans and manages our real property in accordance with the Servicing Agreement, including CFPB mortgage servicing regulations promulgated pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, and temporary payment forbearance requirements and foreclosure moratorium under the CARES Act. These laws and regulations cover a wide range of topics such as licensing; allowable fees and loan terms; permissible servicing and debt collection practices; limitations on forced-placed insurance; special consumer protections in connection with default and foreclosure; and protection of confidential, nonpublic consumer
information (privacy). The volume of new or modified laws and regulations has increased in recent years, and states and individual cities and counties continue to enact laws that either restrict or impose additional obligations in connection with certain loan origination, acquisition and servicing activities in those cities and counties. The laws and regulations are complex and vary greatly among the states and localities, and in some cases, these laws are in direct conflict with each other or with U.S. federal law. In addition, these laws and regulations often contain vague standards or requirements, which make compliance efforts challenging. Material changes in these rules and regulations could increase our expenses under the Servicing Agreement. From time to time, the Servicer may be party to certain regulatory inquiries and proceedings, which, even if unrelated to the residential mortgage servicing operation, may result in adverse findings, fines, penalties or other assessments and may affect adversely its reputation. The Servicer’s failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could adversely affect our expenses and results of operations. If we were to determine to change servicers, there is no assurance that we could find servicers that satisfy our requirements or with whom we could enter into agreements on satisfactory terms. The Servicer’s failure to comply with these laws and regulations could also indirectly result in damage to our reputation in the industry and adversely affect our ability to effect our business plan.
The failure of the Servicer to service our assets effectively would materially and adversely affect us.
We rely on the Servicer to service and manage our assets, including managing collections on our whole mortgage loans and the mortgage loans underlying our retained MBS. If the Servicer is not vigilant in encouraging borrowers to make their monthly payments, the borrowers may be far less likely to make these payments, which could result in a higher frequency of default. If the Servicer takes longer than we expect to liquidate non-performing assets, our losses may be higher than originally anticipated. We also rely on the Servicer to provide all of our property management, lease management and renovation management services associated with the real properties we acquire upon conversion of residential mortgage loans that we own or that we acquire directly. The failure of the Servicer to effectively service our mortgage loan assets, including the mortgage loans underlying any MBS we may own, REO and other real estate-related assets could negatively impact the value of our investments and our performance.
We rely on the Servicer for our loss mitigation efforts relating to mortgage loan assets, which loss mitigation efforts may be unsuccessful or not cost-effective.
We depend on a variety of services provided by the Servicer, including, among other things, to collect principal and interest payments on our whole mortgage loans as well as the mortgage loans underlying our retained MBS and to perform loss mitigation services. In addition, legislation and regulation that have been enacted or that may be enacted in order to reduce or prevent foreclosures through, among other things, loan modifications, may reduce the value of mortgage loans. Mortgage servicers may be required or incentivized by the U.S. federal Government or other jurisdictions to pursue such loan modifications, as well as forbearance plans and other actions intended to prevent foreclosure, even if such loan modifications and other actions are not in the best interests of the owners of the mortgage loans. In addition to legislation and regulation that establish requirements or create financial incentives for mortgage loan servicers to modify loans and take other actions that are intended to prevent foreclosures, federal legislation has also been adopted that creates a safe harbor from liability to creditors for servicers that undertake loan modifications and other actions that are intended to prevent foreclosures. Finally, recent laws and regulations, including CFPB regulations, delay the initiation or completion of foreclosure proceedings on specified types of residential mortgage loans or otherwise limit the ability of mortgage servicers to take actions that may be essential to preserve the value of the mortgage loans underlying the MBS. Any such limitations are likely to cause delayed or reduced collections from mortgagors and generally increase servicing costs. As a result of these legislative and regulatory actions, the Servicer may not perform in our best interests or up to our expectations, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Furthermore, the lack of government assistance and relief made available to mortgage servicers as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic may materially and adversely impact the Servicer.
Certain mortgage loans our Servicer services are higher risk loans, which are more expensive to service than conventional mortgage loans.
Certain mortgage loans our Servicer services are higher risk loans, meaning that the loans are made to less credit worthy borrowers or for properties the value of which has decreased. These loans are more expensive to service because they require more frequent interaction with customers and greater monitoring and oversight. Additionally, in connection with mortgage market reforms and recent and possible future regulatory developments, servicers of higher risk loans are subject to increased scrutiny by state and federal regulators and experience higher compliance costs, which could result in a further increase in servicing costs. Our Servicer may not be able to pass along any of the additional expenses it incurs in servicing higher risk loans to its servicing clients. The greater cost of servicing higher risk loans, which may be further increased through
regulatory changes, consent decrees or enforcement, could adversely affect ours and our Servicer’s business, financial condition and results of operations.
We may be affected by deficiencies in foreclosure practices of third parties, as well as related delays in the foreclosure process as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. federal government has instituted and may continue to institute programs aimed at assisting at-risk homeowners, or reducing the number of properties going into foreclosure or going into non-performing status. As a result, there is significant uncertainty regarding the timing and ability of servicers to remove delinquent borrowers from their homes, so that they can liquidate the underlying properties and ultimately pass the liquidation proceeds through to owners of the mortgage loans or related MBS. In addition, given the magnitude of the housing crisis, and in response to the well-publicized failures of many servicers to follow proper foreclosure procedures (such as “robo-signing”), mortgage servicers are being held to much higher foreclosure-related documentation standards than they previously were. However, because many mortgages have been transferred and assigned multiple times (and by means of varying assignment procedures) throughout the origination, warehouse and securitization processes, mortgage servicers may have difficulty furnishing the requisite documentation to initiate or complete foreclosures. This leads to stalled or suspended foreclosure proceedings, and ultimately additional foreclosure-related costs. Foreclosure-related delays also tend to increase ultimate loan loss severities as a result of property deterioration, amplified legal and other costs, and other factors. Many factors delaying foreclosure, such as borrower lawsuits, judicial backlog and scrutiny, and government mandated foreclosure moratoria as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, are outside of servicers’ control and have delayed, and will likely continue to delay, foreclosure processing in both judicial states (where foreclosures require court involvement) and non-judicial states. The Servicer’s failure or inability to remove delinquent borrowers from their homes in a timely manner could increase our costs, adversely affect the value of the property and mortgage loans and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and business.
Changes in applicable laws or noncompliance with applicable law could materially and adversely affect us.
As an owner of real estate, we are required to comply with numerous U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations, some of which may conflict with one another or be subject to limited judicial or regulatory interpretations. These laws and regulations may include zoning laws, building codes, landlord-tenant laws and other laws generally applicable to business operations. Noncompliance with laws or regulations could expose us to liability.
Lower revenue growth or significant unanticipated expenditures may result from our need to comply with changes in (i) laws imposing remediation requirements and potential liability for environmental conditions existing on properties or the restrictions on discharges or other conditions, (ii) rent control or rent stabilization laws or other residential landlord-tenant laws or (iii) other governmental rules and regulations or enforcement policies affecting the rehabilitation, use and operation of any single-family rental properties we may own, including changes to building codes and fire and life-safety codes.
Our decision whether to rent or sell any REO we acquire upon conversion of NPLs or acquire directly will depend on conditions in the relevant geographic markets, and if our assumptions about rental rates and occupancy levels in our markets are not accurate, our operating results and cash available for distribution could be adversely affected.
We either sell or rent the real property, either single-family residences or smaller commercial properties, that we acquire upon conversion of non-performing mortgage loans or directly. The success of our business model substantially depends on conditions in the applicable sales or rental markets in the relevant geographic markets, including, among other things, occupancy and rent levels. If those assumptions prove to be inaccurate, our operating results and cash available for distribution could be lower than expected, potentially materially.
Rental rates and occupancy levels for single-family residential properties have benefited in recent periods from macroeconomic trends affecting the U.S. economy and residential real estate and mortgage markets in particular, including:
•increases in housing costs which make the traditional concept of home ownership, especially for younger workers, more difficult;
•a tightening of credit that has made it more difficult to finance a home purchase, combined with efforts by consumers generally to reduce their exposure to credit;
•economic and employment conditions that have increased foreclosure rates;
•a concentration of high-paying employment opportunities in certain large metropolitan areas currently experiencing significant HPA is pricing homes beyond the reach of many buyers, and also forcing reductions in HPA in outlying areas.
The single-family rental market is currently significantly larger than in historical periods. We do not expect the favorable trends in the single-family rental market to continue indefinitely. The strengthening of the U.S. economy and job growth, the current availability of low residential mortgage rates and government-sponsored programs promoting home ownership, may contribute to a stabilization or reversal of the current trend that favors renting rather than homeownership. In addition, we expect that as investors increasingly seek to capitalize on opportunities to purchase undervalued housing properties and convert them to productive uses, the supply of single-family rental properties will decrease and the competition for tenants will intensify. To the extent that a significant portion of our business becomes single-family rentals, a softening of the rental property market in our markets could adversely affect our operating results and cash available for distribution, potentially materially.
We may incur significant costs in restoring our properties, and we may underestimate the costs or amount of time necessary to complete restorations.
Before determining whether to rent or sell any of our properties, the Servicer will perform a detailed assessment, including on-site reviews of such properties, to identify the scope of restoration to be completed. Beyond customary repairs, we may undertake improvements designed to optimize overall property appeal and increase the value and rentability of the property when such improvements can be done cost effectively. To the extent properties are occupied, restorations may be postponed until the premises are vacated. We expect that nearly all of our properties will require some level of restoration immediately upon their acquisition or in the future following expiration of a lease or otherwise. We may acquire properties that we plan to restore extensively. In addition, in order to reposition properties in the rental market, we will be required to make ongoing capital improvements and may need to perform significant restorations and repairs from time to time. Consequently, we are exposed to the risks inherent in property restoration, including potential cost overruns, increases in labor and material costs, delays by contractors in completing work, delays in the timing of receiving necessary work permits and certificates of occupancy and poor workmanship. If our assumptions regarding the cost or timing of restorations across our properties prove to be materially inaccurate, we could be materially and adversely affected.
Contingent or unknown liabilities could materially and adversely affect us.
Our acquisition activities are subject to many risks. We may acquire properties that are subject to unknown or contingent liabilities, including liabilities for or with respect to liens attached to properties, unpaid real estate taxes, utilities or other charges for which a prior owner remains liable, clean-up or remediation of environmental conditions or code violations, claims of vendors or other persons dealing with the acquired properties and tax liabilities, among other things. In each case, our acquisition may be without any, or with only limited, recourse with respect to unknown or contingent liabilities or conditions. As a result, if any such liability were to arise relating to our properties, or if any adverse condition exists with respect to our properties that is in excess of our insurance coverage, we might have to pay substantial sums to settle or cure it, which could materially and adversely affect us. The properties we acquire may also be subject to covenants, conditions or restrictions that restrict the use or ownership of such properties, including zoning laws and regulations and prohibitions on leasing or on tenant evictions, or requirements to obtain the approval of home owner associations prior to leasing. We may not discover such restrictions during the acquisition process and such restrictions may adversely affect our ability to operate such properties as we intend.
Poor tenant selection and defaults by our tenants may materially and adversely affect us.
Our success with any REO that we may seek to rent will depend, in large part, upon our Servicer’s ability to attract and retain qualified tenants for our properties, whether residential or commercial. This will depend, in turn, upon our ability to screen applicants, identify good tenants and avoid tenants who may default. We will inevitably make mistakes in our selection of tenants, and we may rent to tenants whose default on our leases or failure to comply with the terms of the lease or other regulations could materially and adversely affect us and the quality and value of our properties. For example, tenants may default on payment of rent, make unreasonable and repeated demands for service or improvements, make unsupported or unjustified complaints to regulatory or political authorities, make use of our properties for illegal purposes, damage or make unauthorized structural changes to our properties that may not be fully covered by security deposits, refuse to leave the property when the lease is terminated, engage in domestic violence or similar disturbances, disturb nearby residents with noise, trash, odors or eyesores, fail to comply with applicable regulations, sub-let to less desirable individuals in violation of our leases or permit unauthorized persons to occupy the property.
In addition, defaulting tenants will often be effectively judgment-proof. The process of evicting a defaulting tenant from a family residence can be adversarial, protracted and costly. Furthermore, some tenants facing eviction may damage or destroy the property. Damage to our properties may significantly delay re-leasing after eviction, necessitate expensive repairs or impair the rental revenue or value of the property. In addition, we will incur turnover costs associated with re-leasing the
properties, such as marketing expense and brokerage commissions, and will not collect revenue while the property is vacant. Although we will attempt to work with tenants to prevent such damage or destruction, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in all or most cases. Such tenants will not only cause us not to achieve our financial objectives for the properties in which they live, but may subject us to liability, and may damage our reputation with our other tenants and in the communities where we do business.
A significant uninsured property or liability loss could have a material adverse effect on us.
We carry commercial general liability insurance and property insurance with respect to our rental properties on terms we consider commercially reasonable. There are, however, certain types of losses (such as losses arising from acts of war) that are not insured, in full or in part, because they are either uninsurable or the cost of insurance makes it economically impractical. If an uninsured property loss or a property loss in excess of insured limits were to occur, we could lose our capital invested in a single-family rental property or group of rental properties as well as the anticipated future revenues from such single-family rental property or group of properties. If an uninsured liability to a third party were to occur, we would incur the cost of defense and settlement with or court ordered damages to that third party. A significant uninsured property or liability loss could materially and adversely affect us.
We may be required to make determinations of a borrower’s creditworthiness based on incomplete information or information that we cannot verify, which may cause us to purchase or originate loans that we otherwise would not have purchased or originated and, as a result, may negatively impact our business or reputation.
The commercial real estate lending business depends on the creditworthiness of borrowers, which we must judge. In making such judgment, we may depend on information obtained from non-public sources and the borrowers in making acquisition decisions and such information may be difficult to obtain or may be inaccurate. As a result, we may be required to make decisions based on incomplete information or information that is impossible or impracticable to verify. A determination as to the creditworthiness of a prospective borrower is based on a wide range of information including, without limitation, information relating to the form of entity of the prospective borrower, which may indicate whether the borrower can limit the impact that its other activities have on its ability to pay obligations related to the SBC loan.
We may change our investment strategy, investment guidelines and asset allocation without notice or stockholder consent which may result in riskier investments. In addition, our charter provides that our Board of Directors may authorize us to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election without the approval of our stockholders.
Our Board of Directors has the authority to change our investment strategy or asset allocation at any time without notice to or consent from our stockholders. To the extent that our investment strategy changes in the future, we may make investments that are different from, and possibly riskier than, the investments described in this Annual Report. A change in our investment or leverage strategy may increase our exposure to interest rate and real estate market fluctuations or require us to sell a portion of our existing investments, which could result in gains or losses and therefore increase our earnings volatility. Decisions to employ additional leverage in executing our investment strategies could increase the risk inherent in our asset acquisition strategy. Furthermore, a change in our asset allocation could result in our allocating assets in a different manner than as described in this Annual Report.
In addition, our charter provides that our Board of Directors may authorize us to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if it determines that it is no longer in our best interests to qualify as a REIT. These changes could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, the market value of our common stock, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Our inability to compete effectively in a highly competitive market could adversely affect our ability to implement our business strategy, which could materially and adversely affect us.
Our profitability depends, in large part, on our ability to acquire targeted assets at favorable prices. We face significant competition when acquiring RPLs and SBC loans and our other targeted assets. Our competitors include other mortgage REITs, financial companies, public and private funds, hedge funds, commercial and investment banks and residential and commercial finance companies. Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably greater access to capital and other resources than we do. Furthermore, new companies with significant amounts of capital have recently been formed or have raised additional capital, and may continue to be formed and raise additional capital in the future, and these companies may have objectives that overlap with ours, which may create competition for assets we wish to acquire. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that are not available to us. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of assets to acquire
and establish more relationships than us. We also may have different operating constraints from those of our competitors including, among others, tax-driven constraints such as those arising from our intention to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT and restraints imposed on us by our attempt to comply with certain exclusions from the definition of an “investment company” or other exemptions under the Investment Company Act. Furthermore, competition for assets in our targeted asset classes may lead to the price of such assets increasing, may reduce the number of attractive RPL and SBC loan investment opportunities available to us or increase the bargaining power of asset owners seeking to sell, which would increase the prices for these assets. If such events occur, our ability to implement our business strategy could be adversely affected, which could materially and adversely affect us. We cannot assure you that the competitive pressures we face will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our ability to make distributions to our stockholders depends on our operating results, our financial condition and other factors, and we may not be able to make regular cash distributions at a fixed rate or at all under certain circumstances.
We make distributions to our stockholders in amounts such that we distribute substantially all of our taxable income in each year (subject to certain adjustments). This distribution policy enables us to avoid being subject to U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income that we distribute to our stockholders. However, our ability to make distributions depends on our results of operations, which may experience uneven cash flow because we hold RPLs and NPLs, our earnings, applicable law, our financial condition and such other factors as our Board of Directors may deem relevant from time to time. We will declare and make distributions to our stockholders only to the extent approved by our Board of Directors.
We are highly dependent on communications and information systems operated by third parties, and systems failures could significantly disrupt our business and negatively impact our operating results.
Our business is highly dependent on communications and information systems that allow us to monitor, value, buy, sell, finance and hedge our investments. These systems are operated by third parties, including our affiliates, and, as a result, we have limited ability to ensure continued operation. In the event of systems failure or interruption, we will have limited ability to affect the timing and success of systems restoration. Any failure or interruption of our systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.
Security breaches and other disruptions could compromise our information and expose us to liability, which would cause our business and reputation to suffer.
In the ordinary course of our business, we, through the Servicer, may acquire and store sensitive data on our network, such as our proprietary business information and personally identifiable information of borrowers obligated on loans and our prospective and current mortgages and tenants. The secure processing and maintenance of this information is critical to our business strategy. Despite our security measures, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Any such breach could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, regulatory penalties, disruption to our operations and the services we provide to customers or damage our reputation, which could materially and adversely affect us.
Uncertainty about the future of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) may adversely affect our business and financial results.
LIBOR and other indices which are deemed "benchmarks" are the subject of recent national, international, and other regulatory guidance and proposals for reform. Some of these reforms are already effective, whereas others are still to be implemented. These reforms may cause such benchmarks to perform differently than in the past, or have other consequences which cannot be predicted. We expect that, over time, the Secured Overnight Financing Rate ("SOFR") published by Federal Reserve Bank of New York will replace U.S. Dollar LIBOR as the principal reference rate for U.S. Dollar-denominated floating rate instruments. However, the manner and timing of this shift is currently unknown. SOFR is an overnight rate instead of a term rate, making SOFR an inexact replacement for LIBOR. Market participants are still considering how various types of financial instruments and securitization vehicles should be modified following a discontinuation of LIBOR. It is possible that not all of our assets and liabilities will transition away from LIBOR at the same time, and it is possible that not all of our assets and liabilities will transition to the same alternative reference rate. No assurance can be provided that these uncertainties or their resolution will not adversely affect the use, level, and volatility of SOFR, LIBOR or other interest rates or the value of SOFR-based or LIBOR-based securities, including our mortgage loans. These uncertainties or their resolution also could negatively
impact our loan and other asset values, interest income, funding costs, asset-liability management strategies, and other aspects of our business and financial results.
Risks Related to Leverage and Hedging
We use leverage in executing our business strategy, which may adversely affect the return on our assets and may reduce cash available for distribution to our stockholders and increase losses when economic conditions are unfavorable.
We use leverage to finance our investment operations and to enhance our financial returns and potentially to pay dividends. Sources of leverage may include bank credit facilities, warehouse lines of credit, structured financing arrangements (including securitizations) and repurchase agreements, among others. We may also seek to raise additional capital through public or private offerings of debt or equity securities, depending upon market conditions. We may use repurchase agreements to acquire certain assets, including our internally developed MBS, until we can securitize the assets. Because repurchase agreements are short-term borrowing, typically with 30- to 90-day terms although some may have terms up to 364 days, they are more subject to volatility in interest rates and lenders willingness to extend such borrowings. We currently do not expect a majority of our borrowings to be repurchase agreements or other short-term borrowings. Through the use of leverage, we may acquire positions with market exposure significantly greater than the amount of capital committed to the transaction. We intend to use leverage for the primary purpose of financing acquisitions for our portfolio and not for the purpose of speculating on changes in interest rates. We do not have a targeted debt-to-equity ratio generally or for specific asset classes. We may, however, be limited or restricted in the amount of leverage we may employ by the terms and provisions of any financing or other agreements that we may enter into in the future, and we may be subject to margin calls as a result of our financing activity. Our ability to achieve our investment and leverage objectives depends on our ability to borrow money in sufficient amounts and on favorable terms and, as necessary, to renew or replace borrowings as they mature.
Leverage magnifies both the gains and the losses of our positions. Leverage increases our returns as long as we earn a greater return on investments purchased with borrowed funds than our cost of borrowing such funds. However, if we use leverage to acquire an asset and the value of the asset decreases, the leverage increases our losses. Even if the asset increases in value, if the asset fails to earn a return that equals or exceeds our cost of borrowing, the leverage decreases our returns.
We may be required to post large amounts of cash as collateral or margin to secure our repurchase commitments. In the event of a sudden, precipitous drop in value of our financed assets, we might not be able to liquidate assets quickly enough to repay our borrowings, further magnifying losses. Even a small decrease in the value of a leveraged asset may require us to post additional margin or cash collateral. This may decrease the cash available to us for distributions to stockholders, which could adversely affect the price of our common stock. In addition, our debt service payments reduce cash flow available for distribution to stockholders. We may not be able to meet our debt service obligations. To the extent that we cannot meet our debt service obligations, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to sale to satisfy our debt obligations.
To the extent we are compelled to liquidate qualifying real estate assets to repay debts, our compliance with the REIT rules regarding our assets and our sources of income could be negatively affected, which could jeopardize our ability to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT. Failing to qualify as a REIT would cause us to be subject to U.S. federal income tax (and any applicable state and local taxes) on all of our income and decrease profitability and cash available for distributions to stockholders.
We may not be able to achieve our optimal leverage or target leverage ratios.
We use leverage as a strategy to increase the return to our investors. However, we may not be able to achieve our desired leverage for any of the following reasons:
•we determine that the leverage would expose us to excessive risk;
•our lenders do not make funding available to us at acceptable rates or on acceptable terms; and
•our lenders require that we provide additional collateral to cover our borrowings which may be the case in volatile markets.
In addition, if we exceed our target leverage ratios, the potential adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation described above may be amplified.
Non-recourse long-term financing structures such as securitizations expose us to risks that could result in losses to us.
We have used and intend to continue to use securitization and other non-recourse long-term financing for our investments if, and to the extent, available. In such structures, lenders typically have only a claim against the assets included in the securitizations rather than a general claim against the owner-entity. Prior to each such financing, we may seek to finance our investments with relatively short-term facilities until a sufficient portfolio is accumulated. As a result, we would be subject to the risk that we would not be able to acquire, during the period that any short-term facilities are available, sufficient eligible assets or securities to maximize the efficiency of a securitization.
We also bear the risk that we may not be able to obtain new short-term facilities or may not be able to renew any short-term facilities after they expire should we need more time to seek and acquire sufficient eligible assets or securities for a securitization. In addition, conditions in the capital markets may make the issuance of any such securitization less attractive to us even when we do have sufficient eligible assets or securities. While we retain and expect to retain the unrated equity component of securitizations and, therefore, still have exposure to any investments included in such securitizations, our inability to enter into such securitizations may increase our overall exposure to risks associated with direct ownership of such investments, including the risk of default. Additionally, the securitization of our portfolio could magnify our exposure to losses because any equity interest we retain in the issuing entity would be subordinate to the notes issued to investors and we would, therefore, absorb all of the losses sustained with respect to a securitized pool of assets before the owners of the notes experience any losses. An inability to securitize our portfolio may adversely affect our performance and our ability to grow our business.
Our inability to refinance any short-term facilities would also increase our risk because borrowings thereunder would likely be recourse to us as an entity. If we are unable to obtain and renew short-term facilities or to consummate securitizations to finance our investments on a long-term basis, we may be required to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at an inopportune time or price.
Additionally, our secured debt is structured with multiple interest rate step-ups generally beginning after an initial three-year borrowing term. While we fully intend to refinance these borrowings at lower interest rates before the step-up date is reached, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to refinance these borrowings on favorable terms, or at all, potentially exposing us to higher amounts of interest expense.
Our failure to comply with covenants contained in any debt agreement, including as a result of events beyond our control, could result in an event of default that could materially and adversely affect our operating results and our financial condition.
We may enter into debt facilities that will require us to comply with various operational, reporting and other covenants that limit us from engaging in certain types of transactions. If there were an event of default under our debt facilities that was not cured or waived, the holders of the defaulted debt could cause all amounts outstanding with respect to that debt to be immediately due and payable. We cannot assure you that our assets or cash flow would be sufficient to fully repay borrowings under our outstanding debt instruments, either upon maturity or if accelerated, upon an event of default, or that we would be able to refinance or restructure the payments on those debt instruments.
Hedging against interest rate changes and other risks may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Subject to qualifying and maintaining our qualification as a REIT and exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act, we may pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity would vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, the types of liabilities and assets held and other changing market conditions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:
•interest rate hedging can be expensive, particularly during periods of rising and volatile interest rates;
•available interest rate hedges may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk for which protection is sought;
•the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related assets or liabilities being hedged;
•to the extent hedging transactions do not satisfy certain provisions of the Code or are not made through a TRS, the amount of income that a REIT may earn from hedging transactions to offset interest rate losses is limited by the Code provisions governing REITs;
•the value of derivatives used for hedging is adjusted from time to time in accordance with accounting rules to reflect changes in fair value; and downward adjustments, or “mark-to-market losses,” would reduce our stockholders’ equity;
•the credit quality of the hedging counterparty owing money on the hedge may be downgraded to such an extent that it impairs our ability to sell or assign our side of the hedging transaction; and
•the hedging counterparty owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay.
Our hedging transactions, which would be intended to limit losses, may actually adversely affect our earnings, which could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
Risks Related to Regulatory and Legislative Actions
We operate in a highly regulated industry and continually changing U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulation could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.
The residential mortgage industry is highly regulated. We and our Manager are required to comply with a wide array of U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations that regulate, among other things, the manner in which each of us conducts our businesses. These regulations directly impact our business and require constant compliance, monitoring and internal and external audits. A material failure to comply with any of these laws or regulations could subject us and our Manager to lawsuits or governmental actions and damage our reputation, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
On March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was adopted, which, among other things, provides emergency assistance to qualifying businesses and individuals as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. There can be no assurance that these interventions or future acts by the government will be successful or that the programs established by the CARES Act or future legislation will have and maintain sufficient liquidity to achieve its purpose. While we may indirectly receive financial, tax or other relief and other benefits under and as a result of the CARES Act, it is not possible to estimate at this time the availability, extent or impact of any such relief.
U.S. federal, state and local governments frequently propose or enact new laws, regulations and rules related to mortgage loans, including servicing and collection of mortgage loans. Laws, regulations, rules and judicial and administrative decisions relating to mortgage loans include those pertaining to Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), equal credit opportunity, fair lending, fair credit reporting, truth in lending, fair debt collection practices, service members protections, compliance with net worth and financial statement delivery requirements, compliance with U.S. federal and state disclosure and licensing requirements, the establishment of maximum interest rates, finance charges and other charges, qualified mortgages, secured transactions, payment processing, escrow, loss mitigation, collection, foreclosure, repossession and claims-handling procedures, and other trade practices and privacy regulations providing for the use and safeguarding of non-public personal financial information of borrowers. Our service providers, including the Servicer and outside foreclosure counsel retained to process foreclosures, must also comply with many of these legal requirements.
In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act resulted in a comprehensive overhaul of the financial services industry in the United States and includes, among other things (i) the creation of a Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify emerging systemic risks posed by financial firms, activities and practices, and to improve cooperation among U.S. federal agencies, (ii) the creation of the CFPB, authorized to promulgate and enforce consumer protection regulations relating to financial products and services, including mortgage lending and servicing, and to exercise supervisory authority over participants in mortgage lending and mortgage servicing, (iii) the establishment of strengthened capital and prudential standards for banks and bank holding companies, (iv) enhanced regulation of financial markets, including the derivatives and securitization markets, and (v) amendments to the TILA, and the RESPA, aimed at improving consumer protections with respect to mortgage originations and mortgage servicing, including disclosures, originator compensation, minimum repayment standards, prepayment considerations, appraisals and loss mitigation and other servicing requirements. Unpredictable events, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic, may create economic shocks, to which federal, state, and local governments respond with new borrower and tenant rights and protections.
In addition, although we do not intend to acquire MBS in which the underlying mortgage loans are guaranteed or insured by any GSE or U.S. Governmental agency, actions taken by or proposed to be taken by, among others, FHFA, the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board or other U.S. governmental agencies that are intended to regulate the origination, underwriting guidelines, servicing guidelines, servicing compensation and other aspects of mortgage loans guaranteed by the GSEs or U.S. governmental agencies (known as “Agency RMBS”) can have indirect and sometimes direct effects on our business and business model, results of operations and liquidity. For example, loan originators and servicers, investors and other participants in the mortgage securities markets may use regulatory guidelines intended for Agency RMBS as guidelines or operating procedures in respect of non-Agency RMBS. In addition, changes in underwriting guidelines for Agency RMBS generally affect the supply of similar or complementary non-Agency RMBS.
Our Manager’s or our Servicer's failure to comply with these laws, regulations and rules may result in reduced payments by borrowers, modification of the original terms of mortgage loans, permanent forgiveness of debt, restrictions on tenant evictions, delays in the foreclosure process, increased servicing advances, litigation, enforcement actions, and repurchase and indemnification obligations.
We expect that legislative and regulatory changes will continue in the foreseeable future, which may increase our operating expenses, either to comply with applicable law, to deal with regulatory examinations or investigations, or to satisfy our lenders and investors that we are in compliance with those laws, regulations and rules that are applicable to our business. Any of these new, or changes in, laws, regulations or rules could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Certain jurisdictions require licenses to purchase, hold, enforce or sell residential mortgage loans. In the event that any such licensing requirement is applicable and we are not able to obtain such licenses in a timely manner or at all, our ability to implement our business strategy could be adversely affected, which could materially and adversely affect us.
Certain jurisdictions require a license to purchase, hold, enforce or sell residential mortgage loans. We currently do not hold any such licenses, and there is no assurance that we will be able to obtain them or, if obtained, that we will be able to maintain them. In connection with these licenses we would be required to comply with various information reporting and other regulatory requirements to maintain those licenses, and there is no assurance that we will be able to satisfy those requirements on an ongoing basis. Our failure to obtain or maintain such licenses or our inability to enter into another regulatory-compliant structure, such as establishing a trust with a federally chartered bank as trustee to purchase and hold the residential mortgage loans, could restrict our ability to invest in loans in these jurisdictions if such licensing requirements are applicable. In lieu of obtaining such licenses, we may contribute our acquired RPLs to one or more wholly-owned trusts whose trustee is a national bank, which may be exempt from state licensing requirements, or the seller of such loans may continue to hold the loans on our behalf until we obtain the applicable state license. If required, we will form one or more subsidiaries that will apply for necessary state licenses. If these subsidiaries obtain the required licenses, any trust holding loans in the applicable jurisdictions may transfer such loans to such subsidiaries, resulting in these loans being held by a state-licensed entity. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain the requisite licenses in a timely manner or at all or in all necessary jurisdictions, or that the use of the trusts will reduce the requirement for licensing, any of which could limit our ability to invest in residential mortgage loans. Our failure to obtain and maintain required licenses may expose us to penalties or other claims and may affect our ability to acquire an adequate and desirable supply of mortgage loans to conduct our securitization program and, as a result, could harm our business.
We could be subject to liability for potential violations of predatory lending laws, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Residential mortgage loan originators and servicers are required to comply with various U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations, including anti-predatory lending laws and laws and regulations imposing certain restrictions on requirements on “high cost” loans. Failure of our Manager or service providers to comply with these laws could subject us, as an assignee or purchaser of the related residential mortgage loans, to monetary penalties and could result in impairment in the ability to foreclose such loans or the borrowers rescinding the affected residential mortgage loans. Lawsuits have been brought in various states making claims against assignees or purchasers of high cost loans for violations of state law. Named defendants in these cases have included numerous participants within the secondary mortgage market. If the loans are found to have been originated in violation of predatory or abusive lending laws, we could incur losses, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Changes to U.S. federal income tax laws could materially and adversely affect us and our stockholders.
The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of REITs and their shareholders may be modified, possibly with retroactive effect, by legislative, judicial or administrative action at any time, which could affect the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in our shares. The U.S. federal income tax rules, including those dealing with REITs, are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process, the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department, which results in statutory changes as well as frequent revisions to regulations and interpretations.
The U.S. federal tax legislation, commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), makes substantial changes to the Code. Among those changes are a significant permanent reduction in the generally applicable corporate tax rate, a temporary reduction in the highest marginal income tax rate applicable to individuals subject to a “sunset” provision, the elimination or modification of various currently allowed deductions (including substantial limitations on the deductibility of interest), certain additional limitations on the deduction of net operating losses and preferential effective rates of taxation on
most ordinary REIT dividends and certain business income derived by non-corporate taxpayers in comparison to other ordinary income recognized by such taxpayers. The effect of these, and the many other, changes made in the TCJA is highly uncertain, both in terms of their direct effect on the taxation of an investment in our common stock and their indirect effect on the value of our assets or shares of our common stock or market conditions generally. Furthermore, many of the provisions of the TCJA will require guidance through the issuance of Treasury regulations in order to assess their effect. There may be a substantial delay before such regulations are promulgated, increasing the uncertainty as to the ultimate effect of the statutory amendments on us. There may also be technical corrections legislation proposed with respect to the TCJA, the effect and timing of which cannot be predicted and which may be adverse to us or our stockholders.
Among other amendments, the TCJA effected the following changes (generally effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, unless otherwise indicated):
•For taxable years that begin after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026: (i) the U.S. federal income tax brackets generally applicable to ordinary income of individuals, trusts and estates have been modified, and (ii) stockholders that are individuals, trusts or estates are generally entitled to a deduction equal to 20% of the aggregate amount of ordinary income dividends received from a REIT (i.e., not including dividends that are eligible for the reduced rates applicable to “qualified dividend income” or treated as capital gain dividends), subject to certain limitations.
•The U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to corporations has been reduced to 21% (from the previous maximum rate of 35%), and the alternative minimum tax has been repealed for corporations. In addition, the maximum withholding rate on distributions by us to non-U.S. stockholders that are attributable to gain from the disposition of a U.S. real property interest is reduced from 35% to 21%.
•There are new limitations on the deductibility of interest expense and net operating losses, which may affect the deductibility of interest paid or accrued by, or net operating losses generated by, us or our TRSs or other subsidiaries. Certain of the limitations applicable to net operating losses apply to losses arising in taxable years ending after December 31, 2017.
•A U.S. tax-exempt stockholder that is subject to tax on its unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”) will be required to segregate its taxable income and loss for each unrelated trade or business activity for purposes of determining its UBTI.
•New rules have been enacted that in some circumstances may accelerate the recognition of certain income items.
Risks Related to Our Management and Our Relationship with Our Manager, the Servicer and Aspen
We have conflicts of interest with our Manager, the Servicer and Aspen, and certain members of our Board of Directors, as well as our management team, have, or could have in the future, conflicts of interest due to their respective relationships with these entities, and such conflicts could be resolved in a manner adverse to us.
Conflicts between us and our Manager. Our Manager manages our business, investment activities and affairs pursuant to the Management Agreement. This agreement was not negotiated at arm’s length and, accordingly, could contain terms, including the basis of calculation of the amount of the fees payable to our Manager, that are less favorable to us than similar agreements negotiated with unaffiliated third parties. Furthermore, the calculation of our Manager’s incentive fee is based on, among other measures, the dividends declared by our Board of Directors. In evaluating investments and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn incentive compensation may lead our Manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of dividends at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, in order to achieve higher incentive compensation. Investments with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative. This could result in increased risk to the value of our investment portfolio.
As an externally managed REIT, we are entirely managed by our Manager, which negotiates all our agreements and deals with all our contractual counterparties on our behalf. For example, our Manager acts for us in connection with the Servicing Agreement, including monitoring the performance of our Servicer under the agreement and exercising any available rights or remedies on our behalf. Our Manager and our Servicer are affiliates. Each of our officers is an officer of our Manager or the Servicer.
Conflicts between us and the Servicer. The Servicing Agreement was also not negotiated at arms’ length and could contain terms that are less favorable to us than similar agreements negotiated with unaffiliated third parties. In addition, the
Servicer is generally not prohibited from providing similar services to other owners of mortgage loans and real estate assets, including other affiliates of Aspen.
Particular risks associated with our license for the name “Great Ajax.” If the Management Agreement expires or is terminated for any reason, the trademark license agreement pursuant to which we license the mark “Great Ajax” from Aspen will also terminate within 30 days. Upon any such termination, we would be required to cease doing business using the name “Great Ajax” and would have to change our corporate name, both of which could have a material adverse effect upon our business. All goodwill associated with our use of the mark “Great Ajax” is not our asset and such goodwill cannot be transferred by us to a third party. In addition, we need to obtain the consent of Aspen before we are permitted to register the licensed mark in any jurisdiction in the world. Failure to obtain such consent could have a material adverse effect on us, including our ability to expand our business into new jurisdictions.
Our Management team may engage in other activities and may have interests that conflict with ours. Our Manager and members of its management team may engage in any other business or render similar or different services to others including, without limitation, the direct or indirect sponsorship or management of other investment-based accounts or commingled pools of capital, so long as its services to us are not impaired thereby; provided that it may not engage in any such business or provide such services to any other entity that invests in the asset classes in which we intend to invest so long as we have on hand an average of $25 million in capital available for investment over the previous two fiscal quarters or our independent directors determine that we have the ability to raise capital at or above our most recent book value. If this occurs, our Manager or members of its management team may devote a disproportionate amount of time and other resources to acquire or manage properties owned by others. In addition, Aspen has agreed, for itself and its subsidiaries, including our Servicer, to similar restrictions on their ability to compete with us. We will seek to manage any potential conflicts through provisions of our agreements with them and through oversight by independent members of our Board of Directors or general dispute resolution methods. However, there can be no assurance that such measures will be effective, that we will be able to resolve all conflicts with our Manager, our Servicer and Aspen or that the resolution of any such conflicts will be no less favorable to us than if we were dealing with unaffiliated third parties.
We own a 19.8% equity interest in our Manager and an 8.0% equity interest in the parent company of our Servicer through GA-TRS, with warrants to purchase an additional equity interest in GAFS. As of March 2, 2020, two of our larger stockholders, Flexpoint Great Ajax Holdings LLC (“Flexpoint REIT Investor”) an affiliate of an investment fund managed by Flexpoint Ford LLC, and investors consisting of an investment fund for which Wellington Management Company LLP is the investment advisor and one or more other investment advisory clients of Wellington Management Company LLP (collectively, the “Wellington Investors”) own 4.3% and 14.8%, respectively, of our outstanding common stock. In addition, Flexpoint REIT Investor and one of the Wellington Investors each own 26.73% of our Manager, and 9.03% of Great Ajax FS LLC (“GAFS”), the parent of the Servicer, with warrants to purchase an additional equity interest in GAFS. Mr. Mendelsohn controls 50% of the manager of Aspen, which owns a 26.73% investment in our Manager and a 73.77% interest in GAFS, and has certain economic and/or management rights with respect to approximately 9.22% of the interests in Aspen. Furthermore, each of our executive officers is an executive officer of our Manager or the Servicer or both and has interests in our relationship with them that may be different from the interests of our stockholders. In particular, these individuals, other than the chief financial officer, have a direct interest in the financial success of our Manager or the Servicer, which may encourage these individuals to support strategies in furtherance of their financial success that adversely affect us. Such ownership creates conflicts of interest when such directors or members of our management team are faced with decisions that involve us and our Manager, our Servicer, Aspen or any of their respective subsidiaries. See “Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” and “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence — Agreements with Anchor Investors.”
Our Board of Directors has approved a very broad investment policy and guidelines for our Manager and will not review or approve each investment decision. We may change our investment policy and guidelines without stockholder consent, which may materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Our Manager is authorized to follow a very broad investment policy and guidelines and, therefore, has great latitude in determining the types of assets that are proper investments for us, as well as the individual investment decisions. In the future, our Manager may make investments with lower rates of return than those anticipated under current market conditions and/or may make investments with greater risks to achieve those anticipated returns. Our Board of Directors will periodically review our investment policy and guidelines and our investment portfolio but will not review or approve each proposed investment by our Manager unless it falls outside the scope of our previously approved investment policy and guidelines or constitutes a related party transaction.
In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, our Board of Directors relies primarily on information provided to it by our Manager. Furthermore, our Manager may use complex strategies. Transactions entered into by our Manager may be costly, difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our Board of Directors. In addition, we may change our investment policy and guidelines and targeted asset classes at any time without the consent of our stockholders, and this could result in our making investments that are different in type from, and possibly riskier than, our current investments or the investments currently contemplated. Changes in our investment policy and guidelines and targeted asset classes may increase our exposure to interest rate risk, counterparty risk, default risk and real estate market fluctuations, which could materially and adversely affect us.
We depend on our Manager. We may not be able to retain our engagement of our Manager under certain circumstances, which could materially and adversely affect us. Termination of our Manager by us without cause is difficult and costly and our agreements with our Servicer may simultaneously terminate or be terminated, as applicable.
Our success depends upon our relationships with and the performance of our Manager and its key personnel. Key personnel may leave its employment or may become distracted by financial or operational issues in connection with their business and activities unrelated to us and over which we have no control or may fail to perform for any reason. Our Manager may engage in any other business or render similar or different services to others, including, without limitation, the direct or indirect sponsorship or management of other investment-based accounts or commingled pools of capital, so long as its services to us are not impaired thereby; provided that our Manager may not engage in any such business or provide such services to any other entity that invests in the asset classes in which we intend to invest so long as we have on hand an average of $25 million in capital available for investment over the previous two fiscal quarters or our independent directors determine that we have the ability to raise capital at or above our most recent book value. Aspen Capital has agreed for itself and its subsidiaries to similar restrictions. In the event our Manager provides its services to a competitor, it may be difficult for us to secure a suitable replacement to our Manager on favorable terms, or at all or maintain our engagement of our Manager. In the event that the Management Agreement is terminated for any reason or our Manager is unable to retain its key personnel, it may also be difficult for us to secure a suitable replacement to our Manager on favorable terms, or at all. If we terminate the Management Agreement without cause thereafter or our Manager terminates the Management Agreement due to our default in the performance of any material term of the Management Agreement, we will be required to pay a significant termination fee. In addition, the Management Agreement will automatically terminate at the same time as the Servicing Agreement if the Servicing Agreement is terminated for any reason. If the Management Agreement expires or is earlier terminated, we and our Servicer have certain rights to terminate the Servicing Agreement and the trademark license agreement will automatically terminate. The occurrence of any of the above-described events could materially and adversely affect us.
The incentive fee payable to our Manager under the Management Agreement will be payable quarterly based on the dividends declared by our Board of Directors and may cause our Manager to select investments in more risky assets to increase its incentive compensation.
Our Manager will be entitled to receive incentive compensation based upon, among other measures, the dividends declared by our Board of Directors in its discretion. In evaluating investments and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn incentive compensation may lead our Manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of dividends at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, in order to achieve higher incentive compensation. Investments with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative. This could result in increased risk to the value of our investment portfolio.
The Servicing Agreement was not negotiated at arm’s length.
Under the Servicing Agreement, the Servicer provides us with critically important services, including, among many others, the servicing of our whole mortgage loans, including the mortgage loans underlying our MBS, loan modification services, assisted deed-in-lieu of foreclosure services, assisted deed-for-lease services and other loss mitigation services with respect to our mortgage loans and property management, leasing management and renovation management services with respect to our real property assets and assistance in finding third party financing for such properties. The Servicing Agreement has an initial term of 15 years, expiring July 8, 2029. We may not terminate the Servicing Agreement except for cause or if we terminate the Management Agreement for cause, the Servicer may terminate the Servicing Agreement without cause by providing written notice to us no later than 180 days prior to December 31 of any year, and the Servicing Agreement will terminate effective on the December 31 next following the delivery of such notice. The Servicing Agreement also provides that the Servicer may terminate the agreement within 180 days after receiving notice that the Management Agreement has terminated, without any termination payment by us if the Management Agreement has been terminated for cause. If the Management Agreement has been terminated other than for cause and the Servicer terminates the Servicing Agreement, we will be required to pay a significant termination fee. The Management Agreement will automatically terminate at the same time as
the Servicing Agreement if the Servicing Agreement is terminated for any reason. Upon any termination of the Servicing Agreement, it may be difficult for us to secure suitable replacements or we may secure alternative servicers with less effective servicing platforms or at greater expense. In addition, the Servicer has no liability to us for its negligence in performing services for us under the Servicing Agreement, unless that negligence rises to the level of gross negligence or willful misconduct. The material terms of the Servicing Agreement are further described in “Item 1. Business — The Servicer.” The Servicing Agreement was not negotiated at arm's length; accordingly, it may contain terms that are less favorable to us than agreements negotiated with one or more unaffiliated third parties might contain.
Failure of our Servicer to effectively perform its obligations under the Servicing Agreement could materially and adversely affect us.
We are contractually obligated to service the residential mortgage loans that we acquire and we must operate or provide for the operation of the real estate assets we will own. We do not have any employees, a servicing platform, licenses or technical resources necessary to service our acquired loans. Consequently, we have engaged our Servicer to service our mortgage loans and other real estate assets. If for any reason our Servicer is unable to service these loans or real estate assets at the level and/or the cost that we anticipate, or if we fail to pay our Servicer or otherwise default under the Servicing Agreement, and our Servicer ceases to act as our servicer, alternate service providers may not be readily available on favorable terms, or at all, which could adversely affect our Manager’s performance under the Management Agreement and our business and results of operations. Our Servicer’s failure to perform the services under the Servicing Agreement would have a material adverse effect on us. Currently, we are our Servicer's largest customer.
Pursuant to the terms of the Servicing Agreement, our Servicer is required to pay taxes, insurance and other charges when the borrower does not have sufficient funds in to pay the amounts themselves or when the loan has converted to REO. Our Servicer generally recovers these amounts from the liquidation proceeds from the underlying loans or REO. In the event our Servicer is unable to fund these borrower or REO charges, we might have to advance the funds to protect our interest in the loan or REO. This advancing in advance of receiving liquidation proceeds could place a strain on our operating capital, our Servicer’s operating capital, and our ability to invest in additional assets.
Our Manager has a contractually defined duty to us rather than a fiduciary duty.
Under the Management Agreement, our Manager has a contractual, as opposed to a fiduciary, relationship with us that limits its obligations to us to those specifically set forth in the Management Agreement. The ability of our Manager and its officers and employees to engage in other business activities may reduce the time it spends managing us. In addition, unlike the relationship we have with our directors, there is no statutory standard of conduct under the Maryland General Corporation Law (the “MGCL”) for officers of a Maryland corporation. Officers of a Maryland corporation, including our officers who are employees of our Manager, are subject to general agency principles including the exercise of reasonable care and skill in the performance of their responsibilities as well as the duties of loyalty, good faith and candid disclosure.
Risks Related to Our Organizational Structure
Maintenance of our exclusion from regulation as an investment company under the Investment Company Act imposes significant limitations on our operations.
We intend to continue to conduct our operations so that neither we nor any of our subsidiaries is required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. We are organized as a holding company and we conduct our business primarily through wholly-owned subsidiaries of our Operating Partnership. Neither we nor our Operating Partnership nor Great Ajax Funding is an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(C). The securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, together with other investment securities we may own, cannot exceed 40% of the value of all our assets (excluding U.S. government securities and cash) on an unconsolidated basis. This requirement limits the types of businesses in which we may engage and the assets we may hold. Our 19.8% equity interest in our Manager and our 8.0% equity interest in the parent company of our Servicer are held by GA-TRS, which is a special purpose subsidiary of our Operating Partnership, and GA-TRS may rely on Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) for its Investment Company Act exclusion and, therefore, our interest in such subsidiary would constitute an “investment security” for purposes of determining whether we pass the 40% test (see “Item 1. Business — Operating and Regulatory Structure — Investment Company Act Exclusion” for additional information regarding the 40% test).
Certain of our subsidiaries may rely on the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) under the Investment Company Act. Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act is designed for entities “primarily engaged in the business of
purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” This exclusion generally requires that at least 55% of the entity’s assets on an unconsolidated basis consist of qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of the entity’s assets consist of qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets. These requirements limit the assets those subsidiaries can own and the timing of sales and purchases of those assets.
To classify the assets held by our subsidiaries as qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, we will rely on no-action letters and other guidance published by the SEC staff regarding those kinds of assets, as well as upon our analyses (in consultation with outside counsel) of guidance published with respect to other types of assets. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of companies similar to ours, or the guidance from the SEC or its staff regarding the treatment of assets as qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. In fact, in August 2011, the SEC published a concept release in which it asked for comments on this exclusion from regulation. To the extent that the SEC staff provides more specific guidance regarding any of the matters bearing upon our exemption from the need to register under the Investment Company Act, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. Any additional guidance from the SEC staff could further inhibit our ability to pursue the strategies that we have chosen. Furthermore, although we intend to monitor the assets of our subsidiaries regularly, there can be no assurance that our subsidiaries will be able to maintain their exclusion from registration. Any of the foregoing could require us to adjust our strategy, which could limit our ability to make certain investments or require us to sell assets in a manner, at a price or at a time that we otherwise would not have chosen. This could negatively affect the value of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model and our ability to make distributions.
Registration under the Investment Company Act would require us to comply with a variety of substantive requirements that impose, among other things:
•limitations on capital structure;
•restrictions on specified investments;
•restrictions on leverage or senior securities;
•restrictions on unsecured borrowings;
•prohibitions on transactions with affiliates; and
•compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting, proxy disclosure and other rules and regulations that would significantly increase our operating expenses.
If we were required to register as an investment company but failed to do so, we could be prohibited from engaging in our business, and criminal and civil actions could be brought against us.
Registration with the SEC as an investment company would be costly, would subject us to a host of complex regulations and would divert attention from the conduct of our business, which could materially and adversely affect us. In addition, if we purchase or sell any real estate assets to avoid becoming an investment company under the Investment Company Act, our net asset value, the amount of funds available for investment and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected.
The ownership limit in our charter may discourage a takeover or business combination that may have benefited our stockholders.
To assist us in qualifying as a REIT, among other purposes, our charter generally limits the beneficial or constructive ownership of our (a) common stock by any person to no more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the aggregate of the outstanding shares of our common stock and (b) capital stock by any person to no more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the aggregate of the outstanding shares of our capital stock. We have waived these ownership limits, to a certain extent, for Flexpoint REIT Investor, the Wellington Investors and certain other investors. This and other restrictions on ownership and transfer of our shares of stock contained in our charter may discourage a change of control of us and may deter individuals or entities from making tender offers for our common stock on terms that might be financially attractive to you or which may cause a change in our management. In addition to deterring potential transactions that may be favorable to our stockholders, these provisions may also decrease your ability to sell our common stock.
Our stockholders’ ability to control our operations is limited.
Our Board of Directors approves our major strategies, including our strategies regarding investments, financing, growth, debt capitalization, REIT qualification and distributions. Our Board of Directors may amend or revise these and other strategies without a vote of our stockholders. Further, Flexpoint REIT Investor and the Wellington Investors own significant
portions of our common stock, will continue to have significant influence over us, and may have conflicts of interest with us or you now or in the future.
Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit a change in our control.
Certain provisions of the MGCL may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or impeding a change of control under circumstances that otherwise could provide our stockholders with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our common stock, including:
•“business combination” provisions that, subject to limitations, prohibit certain business combinations between us and an “interested stockholder” (defined generally as any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of our outstanding voting stock or an affiliate or associate of ours who, at any time within the two-year period immediately prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the voting power of our then-outstanding stock) or an affiliate of an interested stockholder for five years after the most recent date on which the stockholder became an interested stockholder, and thereafter require two supermajority stockholder votes to approve any such combination; and
•“control share” provisions that provide that a holder of our “control shares” (defined as voting shares of stock which, when aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquiror or in respect of which the acquiror is able to exercise or direct the exercise of voting power (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy), entitle the acquiror to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a “control share acquisition” (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of ownership or control of issued and outstanding “control shares,” subject to certain exceptions) generally has no voting rights with respect to the control shares except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding all interested shares.
We elected to opt out of these provisions of the MGCL, in the case of the business combination provisions, by resolution of our Board of Directors exempting any business combination between us and any other person (provided that such business combination is first approved by our Board of Directors, including a majority of our directors who are not affiliates or associates of such person), and in the case of the control share provisions, pursuant to a provision in our bylaws. We may not opt back in to either of these provisions without the approval of the holders of a majority of our shares of common stock.
Our authorized but unissued common and preferred stock may prevent a change in control of the company.
Our charter authorizes us to issue additional authorized but unissued common stock and preferred stock without stockholder approval. In addition, our Board of Directors may, without stockholder approval, (i) amend our charter to increase or decrease the aggregate number of our shares of stock or the number of shares of any class or series of stock that we have authority to issue and (ii) classify or reclassify any unissued common stock or preferred stock and set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares. As a result, among other things, our board may establish a class or series of common stock or preferred stock that could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control of the company that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.
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 interest.
Our charter limits the liability of our present and former directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages to the maximum extent permitted under Maryland law. Under current Maryland law, our present and former directors and officers will not have any liability to us or our stockholders for money damages other than liability resulting from:
•actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services; or
•active and deliberate dishonesty by the director or officer that was established by a final judgment and is material to the cause of action.
In addition, our charter authorizes us to indemnify our present and former directors and officers for actions taken by them in those and other capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law and our bylaws require us to indemnify our present and former directors and officers, 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 as a director or officer in these and other capacities. In addition, we may be obligated to pay or reimburse the expenses incurred by our present and former directors and officers without requiring a preliminary determination of their ultimate entitlement to indemnification. As a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights against our present and former directors and officers than
might otherwise exist absent the current provisions in our charter and bylaws or that might exist with other companies, which could limit your recourse in the event of actions not in your best interests.
Our charter contains provisions that make removal of our directors difficult, which could make it difficult for our stockholders to effect changes to our management.
Our charter provides that, except pursuant to a Special Election Meeting (as defined in the charter), subject to the rights of holders of one or more classes or series of preferred stock to elect or remove one or more directors, a director may be removed only for “cause” (as defined in our charter), and even then only by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of directors. At a Special Election Meeting, our Manager, the Servicer, Aspen Yo and our directors and officers shall not vote the shares of common stock they beneficially own in the election or removal of directors. At a Special Election Meeting, a majority of the votes entitled to be cast is required to remove a director. Vacancies may be filled only by a majority of the remaining directors in office, even if less than a quorum, for the full term of the directorship in which the vacancy occurred (other than vacancies among any directors elected by the holder or holders of any class or series of preferred stock, if such right exists). These requirements make it more difficult to change our management by removing and replacing directors and may prevent a change in our control that is in the best interests of our stockholders.
Our charter generally does not permit ownership in excess of 9.8% of our common stock or of our stock of all classes and series based on value or number of shares, and attempts to acquire our stock in excess of the stock ownership limit will be ineffective unless an exemption is granted by our Board of Directors. These provisions may restrict change of control or business combination opportunities in which our stockholders might receive a premium for their shares of common stock.
We elected to be taxed as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning with our taxable year ended December 31, 2014. In order for us to continue to qualify as a REIT, no more than 50% of the value of our outstanding shares of capital stock (after taking into account options to acquire shares of stock) may be owned, directly or constructively, by five or fewer individuals during the last half of any calendar year. “Individuals” for this purpose include natural persons, private foundations, some employee benefit plans and trusts, and some charitable trusts. In order to help us qualify as a REIT, among other purposes, our charter generally limits the beneficial or constructive ownership of our (a) common stock by any person to no more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the aggregate of the outstanding shares of our common stock or (b) capital stock by any person to no more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the aggregate of the outstanding shares of our capital stock. Our Board of Directors, in its sole and absolute discretion, may grant an exemption to certain of these prohibitions, subject to certain conditions and receipt by our Board of Directors of certain representations, covenants and undertakings. Our Board of Directors waived such limit in connection with the ownership by Flexpoint REIT Investor, the Wellington Investors and certain other investors. Our Board of Directors may also from time to time increase this ownership limit for one or more persons and may decrease such limit for all other persons. Any decrease in the ownership limit generally applicable to all stockholders will not be effective for any person whose percentage ownership of our stock is in excess of such decreased ownership limit until such time as such person’s percentage ownership of our stock equals or falls below such decreased ownership limit, but any further acquisition of our stock in excess of such decreased ownership limit will be in violation of the decreased ownership limit. Our Board of Directors may not increase the decreased ownership limit (whether for one person or all stockholders) if such increase would allow five or fewer individuals (including certain entities) to beneficially own more than 49.9% in value of our outstanding capital stock.
Our charter’s constructive ownership rules are complex and may cause the outstanding shares of our stock owned by a group of related individuals or entities to be deemed to be constructively owned by one individual or entity. As a result, the acquisition of less than 9.8% of the outstanding shares of any class or series of our stock by an individual or entity could cause that individual or entity to own constructively in excess of 9.8% of the outstanding shares of our common stock or of our stock of all classes and series and thus violate the ownership limits or other restrictions on ownership and transfer of our stock. Any attempt by a stockholder to own or transfer our stock in excess of the ownership limit without the consent of our Board of Directors or in a manner that would cause us to be “closely held” under Section 856(h) of the Code (without regard to whether the stock is held during the last half of a taxable year) or would otherwise cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT will result in the stock being automatically transferred to a trustee for a charitable trust or, if the transfer to the charitable trust is not automatically effective to prevent a violation of the stock ownership limit or the restrictions on ownership and transfer of our stock, any such transfer of our shares will be void ab initio. Further, any transfer of our stock that would result in our shares being beneficially owned by fewer than 100 persons will be void ab initio.
These ownership limitations could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our shares of common stock might receive a premium for their shares of common stock over the then-prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests.
Conflicts of interest could arise in the future as a result of our structure.
Conflicts of interest could arise in the future as a result of the relationships between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and our Operating Partnership or any partner thereof, on the other. Our directors and officers have duties to our company under applicable Maryland law in connection with their oversight of the management of our company. At the same time, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, will have fiduciary duties, as a general partner, to our Operating Partnership and to any partners thereof under Delaware law in connection with the management of our Operating Partnership. Our duties as a general partner to our Operating Partnership and any of its affiliates may come into conflict with the duties of our directors and officers. In the event of a conflict between the interests of our stockholders and the interests of the affiliates of our Operating Partnership, we will endeavor in good faith to resolve the conflict in a manner not adverse to either our stockholders or the affiliates; provided, that for so long as we own a controlling interest in our Operating Partnership, any such conflict that we, in our sole and absolute discretion, determine cannot be resolved in a manner not adverse to either our stockholders or the affiliates of our Operating Partnership will be resolved in favor of our stockholders.
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
The market price of our common stock may fluctuate, and you could lose all or part of your investment.
The stock market in general has been, and the market price of our common stock in particular will likely be, subject to fluctuation, whether due to, or irrespective of, our operating results and financial condition. Our financial performance, government regulatory action, tax laws, interest rates and market conditions in general could have a significant impact on the future market price of our common stock. Some of the other factors that could negatively affect our share price or result in fluctuations in our share price include:
•economic and public health impact as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;
•weakening of the mortgage loan market;
•actual or anticipated variations in our quarterly operating results;
•increases in market interest rates that lead purchasers of our common stock to demand a higher yield;
•changes in our cumulative core earnings or earnings estimates;
•changes in market valuations of similar companies;
•actions or announcements by our competitors;
•actual or perceived conflicts of interest, or the discontinuance of our strategic relationships, with our Manager, the Servicer or Aspen;
•adverse market reaction to any increased indebtedness we incur in the future;
•additions or departures of key personnel;
•actions by stockholders;
•speculation in the press or investment community;
•our ability to maintain the listing of our common stock on a national securities exchange;
•failure to qualify or maintain our qualification as a REIT; and
•failure to maintain our exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act.
The preparation of our consolidated financial statements involves the use of estimates, judgments and assumptions, and our consolidated financial statements may be materially affected if such estimates, judgments and assumptions prove to be inaccurate.
Consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP require the use of estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts. Different estimates, judgments and assumptions reasonably could be used that would have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements, and changes in these estimates, judgments and assumptions are likely to occur from period to period in the future. Significant areas of accounting requiring the application of management’s judgment include, but are not limited to, determining the fair value of our assets and the timing and amount of cash flows from our assets. These estimates, judgments and assumptions are inherently uncertain and, if they prove to be wrong, we face the risk that charges to income will be required. Any such charges could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and the price of our securities. See “Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for a discussion of the accounting estimates, judgments and assumptions that we believe are the most critical to an understanding of our future plan of operations.
If we fail to establish and maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to determine accurately our financial results or to prevent fraud.
Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and effectively prevent fraud. We may in the future discover areas of internal control that need further improvement, and we cannot be certain that we will be successful in maintaining adequate control over our financial reporting and financial processes. Furthermore, as we grow our business, our internal controls will become more complex, and we will require significantly more resources to ensure that our internal controls remain effective. If we or our independent auditors discover a material weakness, the disclosure of that fact, even if quickly remedied, could reduce the market value of our common stock. Additionally, the existence of any material weakness or significant deficiency would require management to devote significant time and incur significant expense to remediate any such material weakness or significant deficiency and management may not be able to remediate any such material weakness or significant deficiency in a timely manner, or at all.
We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and we cannot assure you of our ability to pay distributions in the future.
To continue to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT and generally not be subject to U.S. federal income and excise tax, we make regular quarterly distributions to holders of our common stock out of legally available funds. Our current policy is to pay quarterly distributions that, on an annual basis, will equal all or substantially all of our net taxable income. We have not, however, established a minimum distribution payment level and our ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors described in this Annual Report. All distributions are made at the discretion of our Board of Directors and depend on our earnings, our financial condition, any debt covenants, qualification and maintenance of our REIT qualification, restrictions on making distributions under Maryland law and other factors as our Board of Directors may deem relevant from time to time. We may not be able to make distributions in the future and our Board of Directors may change our distribution policy in the future. We believe that a change in any one of the following factors, among others, could adversely affect our results of operations and impair our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders:
•the profitability of the assets we hold, purchase or originate;
•our ability to make profitable acquisitions and originations;
•margin calls or other expenses that reduce our cash flow;
•defaults in our asset portfolio or decreases in the value of our portfolio; and
•the fact that anticipated operating expense levels may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates.
We cannot assure you that we will achieve results that will allow us to make a specified level of cash distributions or increases in cash distributions in the future. In addition, some of our distributions may include a return of capital.
We may pay distributions from offering proceeds, borrowings or the sale of assets to the extent that distributions exceed earnings or cash flow from our investment activities.
We may pay distributions from offering proceeds, borrowings or the sale of assets to the extent that distributions exceed earnings or cash flow from our investment activities. Because our assets will consist primarily of RPLs that may not receive payments on a regular basis, we may experience uneven cash flow, making it more difficult to maintain the necessary cash to pay distributions. Such distributions would reduce the amount of cash we have available for investing and other purposes and could be dilutive to our financial results. In addition, funding our distributions from our net proceeds may constitute a return of capital to our investors, which would have the effect of reducing each stockholder’s basis in its common stock.
Future sales of our common stock or other securities convertible into our common stock could cause the market value of our common stock to decline and could result in dilution of your shares.
Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock could cause the market price of our common stock to decrease significantly. We cannot predict the effect, if any, of future sales of our common stock, or the availability of shares of our common stock for future sales, on the value of our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock, or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market values for our common stock.
During the third and fourth quarters of 2019, we sold 2,278,518 shares of our common stock under our at-the-market program for net proceeds of approximately $34.3 million, net of underwriting fees. We did not sell any shares of our common stock under our at-the-market program in 2018. The conversion rate for our convertible senior notes due 2024, which are convertible into shares of our common stock, was 1.6694 at December 31, 2019. Holders may convert their notes at their option prior to April 30, 2023 only under limited circumstances. See "Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis - Debt"