Item 1A.     Risk Factors

You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which could materially affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The risks described below are not the only risks facing us. Risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS AND PROPERTIES

We are exploring and evaluating strategic alternatives and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in identifying or completing any strategic alternative or that any such strategic alternative will yield additional value for our shareholders.

On January 16, 2019, our Board of Trustees announced the intention to explore strategic alternatives focused on maximizing shareholder value. Strategic alternatives being considered by the Board of Trustees may include, but are not limited to, a sale of SMTA or the Master Trust 2014, a merger or other potential alternatives transactions. There can be no assurance that the exploration of strategic alternatives will result in the identification or consummation of any transaction or transactions or that any resulting plans or transactions will yield additional value for shareholders. In addition, we may incur substantial expenses associated with identifying and evaluating potential strategic alternatives. The process of exploring strategic alternatives may be time consuming and disruptive. Any potential transaction would be dependent upon a number of factors that may be beyond our control, including, among other factors, market conditions, industry trends, regulatory limitations and the interest of third parties in our business.

The bankruptcy or insolvency of Shopko is likely to result in the termination of Shopko leases and material losses to us.

On January 16, 2019, Shopko filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, and subsequently announced on March 18, 2019 that it intends to liquidate its operations. Rental revenues generated from Shopko represented 17.9% of our Contractual Rent at December 31, 2018. As a consequence of the Shopko bankruptcy filing, we do not expect to receive any additional cash flow going forward from any of the assets leased to Shopko. The loss of Shopko as a tenant will reduce our contractual rent in future periods, which is likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We also made the Shopko B-1 Term Loan to Shopko, with principal outstanding of $34.4 million as of December 31, 2018. This secured loan has been accelerated due to the Shopko bankruptcy filing. The outcome of the Shopko bankruptcy is uncertain and there can be no assurances that there will be any recovery with respect to the Shopko B-1 Term Loan.

The bankruptcy or insolvency of any of our other tenants could result in the termination of such tenant’s lease and incremental material losses to us, in addition to those from the Shopko leases.

The occurrence of a bankruptcy or insolvency of any of our other tenants could diminish the income we receive from that tenant’s lease or leases. In particular, the retail industry is facing reductions in sales revenues and increased bankruptcies throughout the United States, and revenues generated from retail tenants other than Shopko represented 29.4% of our Contractual Rent at December 31, 2018. If a tenant becomes bankrupt or insolvent, federal law may prohibit us from evicting such tenant based solely upon such bankruptcy or insolvency. In addition, a bankrupt or insolvent tenant may be authorized to reject and terminate its lease or leases with us. Any claims against such bankrupt tenant for unpaid future rent would be subject to statutory limitations that would likely result in our receipt of rental revenues that are substantially less than the contractually specified rent we are owed under the lease or leases. In addition, any claim we have for unpaid past rent, if any, may not be paid in full. We may also be unable to re-lease a terminated or rejected space or to re-lease it on comparable or more favorable terms. Moreover, tenants who are considering filing for bankruptcy protection may request that we agree to amendments of their master leases to remove certain of the properties they lease from us under such master leases. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to sell or re-lease such properties or that lease termination fees, if any, received in exchange for such releases will be sufficient to make up for the rental revenues lost as a result of such lease amendments. As a result, future tenant bankruptcies may materially and adversely affect us.

Risks related to commercial real estate ownership could reduce the value of our properties.

Our core business is the ownership of real estate that is leased to retail, service and distribution companies on a triple-net basis. Accordingly, our performance is subject to risks inherent to the ownership of commercial real estate, including:

The occurrence of any of the risks described above may cause the value of our real estate to decline, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Credit and capital market conditions may adversely affect our access to and/or the cost of capital.

Periods of volatility in the credit and capital markets negatively affect the amounts, sources and cost of capital available to us. We primarily use external financing to refinance indebtedness as it matures. If sufficient sources of external financing are not available to us on cost effective terms, we could be forced to limit our business activities and repayment of debt, such as selling assets. To the extent that we access capital at a higher cost (reflected in higher interest rates for debt financing or lower share price for equity financing), our earnings per share and cash flow could be adversely affected.

Our tenants may fail to successfully operate their businesses, which could adversely affect us.

The success of our investments is dependent on the financial stability of our tenants’ financial condition and leasing practices. Adverse economic conditions such as high unemployment levels, interest rates, tax rates and fuel and energy costs may have an impact on the results of operations and financial condition of our tenants and result in a decline in rent or an increased incidence of default under existing leases. Such adverse economic conditions may also reduce overall demand for rental space, which could adversely affect our ability to maintain our current tenants and attract new tenants.

At any given time, our tenants may experience a downturn in their business that may weaken the operating results and financial condition of individual properties or of their business as whole. As a result, a tenant may delay lease commencement, decline to extend a lease upon its expiration, fail to make rental payments when due, become insolvent or declare bankruptcy, as in the case of Shopko's recent bankruptcy filing. We depend on our tenants to operate the properties we own in a manner which generates revenues sufficient to allow them to meet their obligations to us, including their obligations to pay rent, maintain certain insurance coverage and pay real estate taxes and maintain the properties in a manner so as not to jeopardize their operating licenses or regulatory status. The ability of our tenants to fulfill their obligations under our leases may depend, in part, upon the overall profitability of their operations. Cash flow generated by certain tenant businesses may not be sufficient for a tenant to meet its obligations to us. Although our occupied properties are generally operationally essential to our tenants, meaning the property is essential to the tenant’s generation of sales and profits, this does not guarantee that a tenant’s operations at a particular property will be successful or that the tenant will be able to meet all of its obligations to us. Our tenants’ failure to successfully operate their businesses could materially and adversely affect us.

Single-tenant leases involve particular and significant risks related to tenant default.

Many properties in our portfolio are single-tenant triple-net leased properties throughout the U.S. The financial failure of, or default in payment by, a single tenant under its lease is likely to cause a significant reduction in, or elimination of, our rental revenue from that property and a reduction in the value of the property. We may also experience difficulty or a significant delay in re-leasing or selling such property. This risk is magnified in situations where we lease multiple properties to a single tenant under a master lease. The failure or default of a tenant under a master lease could reduce or eliminate rental revenue from multiple properties and reduce the value of such properties. Although the master

lease structure may be beneficial to us because it restricts the ability of tenants to individually remove underperforming properties from the portfolio of properties leased from us, there is no guarantee that a tenant will not default in its obligations to us or decline to renew its master lease upon expiration. The default of a tenant that leases multiple properties from us, as in the case of Shopko's recent bankruptcy filing, could materially and adversely affect us.

A substantial portion of our properties are leased to unrated tenants and the tools we use to measure the credit quality of such tenants may not be accurate.

A substantial portion of our properties are leased to unrated tenants whom we determine, through our internal underwriting and credit analysis, to be creditworthy. Many of our tenants are required to provide financial information, which includes balance sheet, income statement and cash flow statement data, on a quarterly and/or annual basis, and, as of December 31, 2018 , approximately 76.2% ( 58.3% excluding Shopko) of our Contractual Rent was generated pursuant to leases that require the tenant to provide property-level performance information, which includes income statement data on a quarterly and/or annual basis. To assist in our determination of a tenant’s credit quality, we license a product from Moody’s Analytics that provides an EDF and a “shadow rating,” and we evaluate a lease’s property-level rent coverage ratio. An EDF is only an estimate of default probability based, in part, on assumptions incorporated into the product. A shadow rating does not constitute a published credit rating and lacks the extensive company participation that is typically involved when a rating agency publishes a rating; accordingly, a shadow rating may not be as indicative of creditworthiness as a rating published by Moody’s, S&P, or another nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Our calculations of EDFs, shadow ratings and rent coverage ratios are based on financial information provided to us by our tenants and prospective tenants without independent verification on our part, and we must assume the appropriateness of estimates and judgments that were made by the party preparing the financial information. If our measurement of credit quality proves to be inaccurate, we may be subject to defaults, and investors may view our cash flows as less stable.

Decrease in demand for retail and restaurant space may materially and adversely affect us.

As of December 31, 2018 , leases representing approximately 47.3% ( 29.4% excluding Shopko) and 19.6% of our Contractual Rent were with tenants in the retail and restaurant industries, respectively, and we may enter into leases with additional retail and restaurant tenants in the future. Accordingly, a decrease in the demand for retail and/or restaurant spaces adversely impacts us. The market for retail and restaurant space has previously been, and could continue to be, adversely affected by the following factors: weakness in the national, regional and local economies; the adverse financial condition of some large retail and restaurant companies; the ongoing consolidation in the retail and restaurant industries; the excess amount of retail and restaurant space in a number of markets; and, in the case of the retail industry, increasing consumer purchases over the Internet. To the extent that these conditions continue, they are likely to negatively affect market rents for retail and restaurant space, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

High geographic concentration of our properties could magnify the effects of adverse economic or regulatory developments in such geographic areas on our operations and financial condition.

As of December 31, 2018 , 11.7% of our portfolio (as a percentage of Contractual Rent) was located in Texas, representing the highest concentration of our assets. Geographic concentration exposes us to greater economic or regulatory risks than if we owned a more geographically diverse portfolio. We are susceptible to adverse developments in the economic or regulatory environments of the geographic areas in which we concentrate (or in which we may develop a substantial concentration of assets in the future), such as business layoffs or downsizing, industry slowdowns, relocations of businesses, increases in real estate and other taxes or costs of complying with governmental regulations.

We may be unable to renew leases, lease vacant space or re-lease space as leases expire on favorable terms or at all.

Our results of operations depend on our ability to strategically lease space in our properties (by renewing or re-leasing expiring leases and leasing vacant space), optimize our tenant mix or lease properties on more economically favorable terms. As of December 31, 2018 , leases representing approximately 4.7% of our Contractual Revenue will expire during 2020 . As of December 31, 2018 , 25 of our properties, representing approximately 2.9% of our total number of owned properties, were Vacant. Current tenants may decline, or may not have the financial resources available, to renew current leases and we cannot guarantee that leases that are renewed will have terms that are as economically favorable to us as the expiring lease terms. If tenants do not renew the leases as they expire, we will have to find new tenants to lease our properties and there is no guarantee that we will be able to find new tenants or that our properties will be re-leased at rental rates equal to or above the current average rental rates or that substantial rent abatements, tenant improvement allowances, early termination rights, below-market renewal options or other lease incentive

payments will not be offered to attract new tenants. We may experience significant costs in connection with renewing, leasing or re-leasing a significant number of our properties, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations.

Our ability to realize future rent increases will vary depending on changes in the CPI.

Most of our leases contain rent escalators, or provisions that periodically increase the base rent payable by the tenant under the lease. Although 34.7% of our rent escalators increase rent at a fixed amount on fixed dates, as of December 31, 2018, approximately 59.6% ( 41.5% excluding Shopko) (excluding leases on multi-tenant properties) of our rent escalators increase rent by a multiple of any increases in the CPI or the lesser of (a) a multiple of any increase in the CPI over a specified period or (b) a fixed percentage. If the product of any increase in the CPI multiplied by the applicable factor is less than the fixed percentage, the increased rent we are entitled to receive will be less than what we otherwise would have been entitled to receive if the rent escalator was based solely on a fixed percentage. Therefore, during periods of low inflation or deflation, small increases or decreases in the CPI will subject us to the risk of receiving lower rental revenue than we otherwise would have been entitled to receive if our rent escalators were based solely on fixed percentages or amounts. Conversely, if the product of any increase in the CPI multiplied by the applicable factor is more than the fixed percentage, the increased rent we are entitled to receive will be less than what we otherwise would have been entitled to receive if the rent escalator was based solely on an increase in CPI. Therefore, periods of high inflation will subject us to the risk of receiving lower rental revenue than we otherwise would have been entitled to receive if our rent escalators were based solely on CPI increases.

Property vacancies could result in significant capital expenditures and illiquidity.

The loss of a tenant, either through lease expiration or tenant bankruptcy or insolvency, may require us to spend significant amounts of capital to renovate the property before it is suitable for a new tenant. Many of the leases we enter into or acquire are for properties that are specially suited to the particular business of our tenants. Because these properties have been designed or physically modified for a particular tenant, if the current lease is terminated or not renewed, we may be required to renovate the property at substantial costs, decrease the rent we charge or provide other concessions in order to lease the property to another tenant. In the event we are required to sell these or other properties, we may have difficulty selling it then due to the special purpose for which the property may have been designed or modified. This potential illiquidity may limit our ability to quickly modify our portfolio in response to changes in economic or other conditions, including tenant demand. These limitations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Operational risks may disrupt our businesses or result in losses.

We are completely dependent on our Manager’s financial, accounting, communications and other data processing systems. Such systems may fail to operate properly or become disabled as a result of tampering or a breach of the network security systems or otherwise. In addition, such systems are from time to time subject to cyberattacks. Breaches of our Manager’s network security systems could involve attacks that are intended to obtain unauthorized access to our proprietary information or personal identifying information of our shareholders, destroy data or disable, degrade or sabotage our systems, often through the introduction of computer viruses, cyberattacks and other means, and could originate from a wide variety of sources, including unknown third parties. There can be no assurance that measures to provide adequate protection to the integrity of our systems will be successful. If such systems are compromised, do not operate properly or are disabled, we could suffer financial loss, a disruption of our businesses, liability to investors, regulatory intervention or reputational damage. Finally, our Manager relies on third-party service providers for certain aspects of our business, including for certain information systems, technology and administration. Any interruption or deterioration in the performance of these third parties or failures of their information systems and technology could impair the quality of our operations and could affect our reputation and hence adversely affect our business.

Illiquidity of real estate investments could significantly impede our ability to pursue our ongoing business strategy to sell certain of our assets or respond to adverse changes in the performance of our properties and harm our financial condition.

The real estate investments we have made are relatively difficult to sell quickly. As a result, our ability to promptly sell one or more properties in our portfolio in response to changing economic, financial or investment conditions is limited. Return of capital and realization of gains, if any, from an investment generally will occur upon disposition or refinancing of the underlying property. We may be unable to realize our investment objective by sale, other disposition or refinancing at attractive prices within any given period of time or may otherwise be unable to complete any exit strategy. In particular, these risks could arise from weakness in or even the lack of an established market for a property, changes in the

financial condition or prospects of prospective purchasers, changes in national or international economic conditions and changes in laws, regulations or fiscal policies of the jurisdiction in which a property is located.

In addition, the Code imposes restrictions on a REIT’s ability to dispose of properties that are not applicable to other types of real estate companies. In particular, the tax laws applicable to REITs effectively require that we hold our properties for investment, rather than primarily for sale in the ordinary course of business, which may cause us to forego or defer sales of properties that otherwise would be in our best interest. Therefore, we may not be able to vary our portfolio in response to economic or other conditions promptly or on favorable terms, which may materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We face significant competition for tenants, which may decrease or prevent increases of the occupancy and rental rates of our properties.

We compete with numerous developers, owners and operators of properties, many of which own properties similar to ours in the same markets in which our properties are located. In operating and managing our portfolio, we compete for tenants based on a number of factors, including location, rental rates and flexibility. Some of our competitors have greater economies of scale, have lower cost of capital, have access to more resources and have greater name recognition than we do. If our competitors offer space at rental rates below current market rates or below the rental rates we currently charge our tenants, we may lose existing or potential tenants and we may be pressured to reduce our rental rates or to offer more substantial rent abatements, tenant improvements, early termination rights, below-market renewal options or other lease incentive payments in order to retain tenants when our leases expire. Competition for tenants could decrease or prevent increases of the occupancy and rental rates of our properties, which could materially and adversely affect us.

The loss of a borrower or the failure of a borrower to make loan payments on a timely basis will reduce our revenues, which could lead to losses on our investments and reduced returns to our shareholders.

We have originated or acquired long-term, commercial mortgage and other loans. The success of our loan investments is dependent on the financial stability of our borrowers. The success of our borrowers is dependent on each of their individual businesses and their industries, which could be affected by economic conditions in general, changes in consumer trends and preferences and other factors over which neither they nor we have control. For example, in connection with Shopko’s bankruptcy filing, Shopko has filed pleadings asserting that any recovery under the Shopko B-1 Term Loan will be limited and may be impaired in full. We have therefore established a loss reserve in the amount of approximately $33.8 million, representing the remaining amount of the Shopko B-1 Term Loan as of the date hereof. A default on loans owed to us, including the loan made to Shopko, could prevent us from earning interest or receiving a return of the principal of our loan and, as a result, would materially and adversely affect us. In the event of a default, we may also experience delays in enforcing our rights as lender and may incur substantial costs in collecting the amounts owed to us and in liquidating any collateral.

Foreclosure and other similar proceedings used to enforce payment of real estate loans are generally subject to principles of equity, which are designed to relieve the indebted party from the legal effect of that party’s default. Foreclosure and other similar laws may limit our right to obtain a deficiency judgment against the defaulting party after a foreclosure or sale. The application of any of these principles may lead to a loss or delay in the payment on loans we hold, which in turn could reduce the amounts we have available to make distributions. Further, in the event we have to foreclose on a property, the amount we receive from the foreclosure sale of the property may be inadequate to fully pay the amounts owed to us by the borrower and our costs incurred to foreclose, repossess and sell the property which could materially and adversely affect us.

Our investments in mortgage loans may be affected by unfavorable real estate market conditions, including interest rate fluctuations, which could decrease the value of those loans.

Our investments in mortgage loans are subject to risk of default by the borrowers and to interest rate risks. To the extent we incur delays in liquidating defaulted mortgage loans, we may not be able to obtain all amounts due to us under such loans. Further, we will not know whether the values of the properties securing the mortgage loans will remain at the levels existing on the dates of origination of those mortgage loans or the dates of our investment in the loans. If the values of the underlying properties decline, the value of the collateral securing our mortgage loans will also decline and if we were to foreclose on any of the properties securing the mortgage loans, we may not be able to sell or lease them for an amount equal to the unpaid amounts due to us under the mortgage loans. As such, defaults on mortgage loans in which we invest may materially and adversely affect our investment strategy.

Inflation may materially and adversely affect us and our tenants.

Increased inflation could have a negative impact on variable-rate debt we currently have or that we may incur in the future. Our leases typically contain provisions designed to mitigate the adverse impact of inflation on our results of operations. Because tenants are typically required to pay all property operating expenses, increases in property-level expenses at our leased properties generally do not affect us. However, increased operating expenses at vacant properties and the limited number of properties that are not subject to full triple-net leases could cause us to incur additional operating expenses, which could increase our exposure to inflation. Additionally, the increases in rent provided by many of our leases may not keep up with the rate of inflation. Increased costs may also have an adverse impact on our tenants if increases in their operating expenses exceed increases in revenue, which may adversely affect the tenants’ ability to pay rent owed to us.

If we fail to maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately and timely report our financial results.

Section 404(a) of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") requires that, beginning with our annual report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2020, our management is required to assess and report annually on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting and identify any material weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting. However, for so long as we are an “emerging growth company”, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to issue an annual report that addresses the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports, effectively prevent fraud and operate successfully as a public company. If we cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, our reputation and operating results would be harmed. We are required to perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management to report on, and our independent registered public accounting firm to attest to, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of SOX.

Any failure to maintain effective internal controls or timely effect any necessary improvement of our internal control over financial reporting controls could harm operating results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations, which could affect the listing of our common shares on the NYSE. Ineffective internal control over financial reporting could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which would likely have a negative effect on the trading price of our common shares.

The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources.

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, SOX, the listing requirements of the NYSE, and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Compliance with these rules and regulations requires substantial legal and financial compliance costs, makes some activities more difficult, time-consuming, or costly, and places increased demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual and current reports with respect to our business and operating results. SOX requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting that meet this standard, significant resources and oversight are required.

In addition, changing laws, regulations, and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time consuming. These laws, regulations, and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to continue to invest resources to complying with evolving laws, regulations, and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations, and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be harmed.

We depend on external sources of capital that are outside of our control and may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we are required under the Code to distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gain. In addition, we will be subject to income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that we distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and including any net capital gain. Because of these distribution requirements, we may not be able to fund future capital needs from operating cash flow. Consequently, we may rely on third-party sources to fund our capital needs. We may not be able to obtain the financing on favorable terms or at all. Any additional debt we incur will increase our leverage and likelihood of default. Our access to third-party sources of capital depends, in part, on:

If we cannot obtain capital from third-party sources, we may not be able to meet the capital and operating needs of our existing properties, satisfy our debt service obligations or make the cash distributions to our shareholders necessary to maintain our qualification as a REIT.

Historically, we have raised a significant amount of capital through debt issuances of our Master Trust 2014. We have generally used the proceeds from this program to repay other debt and fund real estate acquisitions. As of December 31, 2018 , we had issued notes under our Master Trust 2014 in seven different series over five separate issuances with $1.94 billion aggregate principal amount outstanding. Additionally, under our Master Trust 2014, we had availability of $41.1 million borrowing capacity under our variable funding note as of December 31, 2018 ( $45.8 million as of March 19, 2019). The Master Trust 2014 notes have a weighted average maturity of 4.4 years as of December 31, 2018 . Our obligations under this program are generally secured by liens on certain of our properties. Subject to certain conditions, we may substitute real estate collateral within our securitization trust from time to time. Moreover, we view our ability to substitute collateral under our Master Trust 2014 favorably, and no assurance can be given that financing facilities offering similar flexibility will be available to us in the future.

Dispositions of real estate assets could change the holding period assumption in our valuation analyses, which could result in material impairment losses and adversely affect our financial results.

We evaluate real estate assets for impairment based on the projected cash flow of the asset over our anticipated holding period. If we change our intended holding period due to our intention to sell or otherwise dispose of an asset, we must reevaluate whether that asset is impaired under GAAP. Depending on the carrying value of the property at the time we change our intention and the amount that we estimate we would receive on disposal, we may record an impairment loss that would adversely affect our financial results. Such losses could be material to our assets in the period that it is recognized. In December 2018, we recorded $167.2 million of impairment charges related to tangible and intangible assets due to the Shopko bankruptcy filing.

We may become subject to litigation, which could materially and adversely affect us.

In the ordinary course of business, we may become subject to litigation, including claims relating to our operations, security offerings and otherwise. Some of these claims may result in significant defense costs and potentially significant judgments against us, some of which are not, or cannot be, insured against. We generally intend to vigorously defend ourselves. However, we cannot be certain of the ultimate outcomes of any claims that may arise in the future. Resolution of these types of matters against us may result in our having to pay significant fines, judgments, or settlements, which, if uninsured, or if the fines, judgments, and settlements exceed insured levels, could adversely impact our earnings and cash flows, thereby materially and adversely affecting us. Certain litigation or the resolution of certain litigation may affect the availability or cost of some of our insurance coverage, which could materially and adversely impact us, expose us to increased risks that would be uninsured, and materially and adversely impact our ability to attract directors and officers.

Costs of compliance with, or liabilities related to, environmental laws may materially and adversely affect us.

The properties we own or have owned in the past may subject us to known and unknown environmental liabilities. Under various federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the environment, as a current or former owner

or operator of real property, we may be liable for costs and damages resulting from the presence or discharge of hazardous or toxic substances, waste or petroleum products at, on, in, under or migrating from such property, including costs to investigate and clean up such contamination and liability for harm to natural resources. We may face liability regardless of:

There may be environmental liabilities associated with our properties of which we are unaware. We obtain Phase I environmental site assessments on all properties we finance or acquire. The Phase I environmental site assessments are limited in scope and therefore may not reveal all environmental conditions affecting a property. Therefore, there could be undiscovered environmental liabilities on the properties we own. Some of our properties use, or may have used in the past, underground tanks for the storage of petroleum-based products or other hazardous or toxic substances that could create a potential for release of hazardous substances or penalties if tanks do not comply with legal standards. If environmental contamination exists on our properties, we could be subject to strict, joint and/or several liability for the contamination by virtue of our ownership interest. Some of our properties may contain ACM. Strict environmental laws govern the presence, maintenance and removal of ACM and such laws may impose fines and penalties for failure to comply with these requirements or expose us to third-party liability (e.g., liability for personal injury associated with exposure to asbestos). Strict environmental laws also apply to other activities that can occur on a property, such as air emissions and water discharges, and such laws may impose fines and penalties for violations.

The presence of hazardous substances on a property may adversely affect our ability to sell, lease or improve the property or to borrow using the property as collateral. In addition, environmental laws may create liens on contaminated properties in favor of the government for damages and costs it incurs to address such contamination. Moreover, if contamination is discovered on our properties, environmental laws may impose restrictions on the manner in which they may be used or businesses may be operated, and these restrictions may require substantial expenditures.

In addition, although our leases generally require our tenants to operate in compliance with all applicable laws and to indemnify us against any environmental liabilities arising from a tenant’s activities on the property, we could be subject to strict liability by virtue of our ownership interest. We cannot be sure that our tenants will, or will be able to, satisfy their indemnification obligations, if any, under our leases. Furthermore, the discovery of environmental liabilities on any of our properties could lead to significant remediation costs or to other liabilities or obligations attributable to the tenant of that property, which may affect such tenant’s ability to make payments to us, including rental payments and, where applicable, indemnification payments.

Our environmental liabilities may include property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs. These costs could be substantial. Although we may obtain insurance for environmental liability for certain properties that are deemed to warrant coverage, our insurance may be insufficient to address any particular environmental situation and we may be unable to continue to obtain insurance for environmental matters, at a reasonable cost or at all, in the future. If our environmental liability insurance is inadequate, we may become subject to material losses for environmental liabilities. Our ability to receive the benefits of any environmental liability insurance policy will depend on the financial stability of our insurance company and the position it takes with respect to our insurance policies. If we were to become subject to significant environmental liabilities, we could be materially and adversely affected.

Most of the environmental risks discussed above refer to properties that we own or may acquire in the future. However, each of the risks identified also applies to the owners (and potentially, the lessees) of the properties that secure each of the loans we have made and any loans we may acquire or make in the future. Therefore, the existence of environmental conditions could diminish the value of each of the loans and the abilities of the borrowers to repay the loans and could materially and adversely affect us.

Our properties may contain or develop harmful mold, which could lead to liability for adverse health effects and costs of remediation.

When excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Concern about indoor exposure to mold has been increasing, as exposure to mold may cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. As a result, should our tenants or their employees or customers be exposed to mold at any of our properties we could be required to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold from the affected property. In addition, exposure to mold

by our tenants or others could subject us to liability if property damage or health concerns arise. If we were to become subject to significant mold-related liabilities, our business and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Insurance on our properties may not adequately cover all losses, which could materially and adversely affect us.

Our tenants are required to maintain liability and property insurance coverage for the properties they lease from us pursuant to triple-net leases. Pursuant to such leases, our tenants are generally required to name us (and any of our lenders that have a mortgage on the property leased by the tenant) as additional insureds on their liability policies and additional insured and/or loss payee (or mortgagee, in the case of our lenders) on their property policies. All tenants are required to maintain casualty coverage and most carry limits at 100% of replacement cost. Depending on the location of the property, losses of a catastrophic nature, such as those caused by earthquakes and floods, may be covered by insurance policies that are held by our tenant with limitations such as large deductibles or co-payments that a tenant may not be able to meet. In addition, losses of a catastrophic nature, such as those caused by wind/hail, hurricanes, terrorism or acts of war, may be uninsurable or not economically insurable. In the event there is damage to our properties that is not covered by insurance and such properties are subject to recourse indebtedness, we will continue to be liable for the indebtedness, even if these properties are irreparably damaged.

As of December 31, 2018 , 11.7% of our portfolio (as a percentage of Contractual Rent) was located in Texas, representing the highest concentration of our assets. We recognize that the frequency and / or intensity of extreme weather events may continue to increase due to climate change, and as a result, our exposure to these events could increase. These weather conditions also disrupt our business and the business of our tenants, which could affect the ability of some tenants to pay rent and may reduce the willingness of residents to remain in or move to the affected area. Therefore, as a result of the geographic concentration of our properties in Texas, we face risks, including higher costs, such as uninsured property losses and higher insurance premiums, and disruptions to our business and the businesses of our tenants.

Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations, and other factors, including terrorism or acts of war, may make any insurance proceeds we receive insufficient to repair or replace a property if it is damaged or destroyed. In that situation, the insurance proceeds received may not be adequate to restore our economic position with respect to the affected real property. Furthermore, in the event we experience a substantial or comprehensive loss of one of our properties, we may not be able to rebuild such property to its existing specifications without significant capital expenditures which may exceed any amounts received pursuant to insurance policies, as reconstruction or improvement of such a property would likely require significant upgrades to meet zoning and building code requirements. The loss of our capital investment in or anticipated future returns from our properties due to material uninsured losses could materially and adversely affect us.

Compliance with the ADA and fire, safety and other regulations may require us to make unanticipated expenditures that materially and adversely affect us.

Our properties are subject to the ADA. Under the ADA, all public accommodations must meet federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. Compliance with the ADA requirements could require removal of access barriers and non-compliance could result in imposition of fines by the U.S. government or an award of damages to private litigants, or both. While our tenants are obligated by law to comply with the ADA and typically obligated under our leases and financing agreements to cover costs associated with compliance, if required changes involve greater expenditures than anticipated or if the changes must be made on a more accelerated basis than anticipated, our tenants' ability to cover the costs could be adversely affected. We may be required to expend our own funds to comply with the provisions of the ADA, which could materially and adversely affect us.

In addition, we are required to operate our properties in compliance with fire and safety regulations, building codes and other land use regulations, as they may be adopted by governmental agencies and bodies and become applicable to our properties. We may be required to make substantial capital expenditures to comply with those requirements and may be required to obtain approvals from various authorities with respect to our properties, including prior to acquiring a property or when undertaking renovations of any of our existing properties. There can be no assurance that existing laws and regulatory policies will not adversely affect us or the timing or cost of any renovations, or that additional regulations will not be adopted that increase such delays or result in additional costs. Additionally, failure to comply with any of these requirements could result in the imposition of fines by governmental authorities or awards of damages to private litigants. While we intend to only acquire properties that we believe are currently in substantial

compliance with all regulatory requirements, these requirements may change and new requirements may be imposed which would require significant unanticipated expenditures by us and could materially and adversely affect us.

As a result of acquiring C corporations in carry-over basis transactions, we may inherit material tax liabilities and other tax attributes from such acquired corporations, and we may be required to distribute earnings and profits.

From time to time, we have acquired C corporations in transactions in which the basis of the corporations’ assets in our hands is determined by reference to the basis of the assets in the hands of the acquired corporations, or carry-over basis transactions.

If we acquire any asset from a corporation that is or has been a C corporation in a carry-over basis transaction, and we subsequently recognize gain on the disposition of the asset during the five-year period beginning on the date on which we acquired the asset, then we will be required to pay regular U.S. federal corporate income tax on this gain to the extent of the excess of (1) the fair market value of the asset over (2) our adjusted basis in the asset, in each case determined as of the date on which we acquired the asset. Any taxes we pay as a result of such gain would reduce the amount available for distribution to our shareholders. The imposition of such tax may require us to forgo an otherwise attractive disposition of any assets we acquire from a C corporation in a carry-over basis transaction, and as a result may reduce the liquidity of our portfolio of investments. In addition, in such a carry-over basis transaction, we will succeed to any tax liabilities and earnings and profits of the acquired C corporation. To qualify as a REIT, we must distribute any non-REIT earnings and profits by the close of the taxable year in which such transaction occurs. Any adjustments to the acquired corporation’s income for taxable years ending on or before the date of the transaction, including as a result of an examination of the corporation’s tax returns by the IRS, could affect the calculation of the corporation’s earnings and profits. If the IRS were to determine that we acquired non-REIT earnings and profits from a corporation that we failed to distribute prior to the end of the taxable year in which the carry-over basis transaction occurred, we could avoid disqualification as a REIT by paying a “deficiency dividend.” Under these procedures, we generally would be required to distribute any such non-REIT earnings and profits to our shareholders within 90 days of the determination and pay a statutory interest charge at a specified rate to the IRS. Such a distribution would be in addition to the distribution of REIT taxable income necessary to satisfy the REIT distribution requirement and may require that we borrow funds to make the distribution even if the then-prevailing market conditions are not favorable for borrowings. In addition, payment of the statutory interest charge could materially and adversely affect us.

Changes in accounting standards may materially and adversely affect us.

From time to time the FASB, and the SEC, who create and interpret appropriate accounting standards, respectively, may change the financial accounting and reporting standards or their interpretation and application of these standards that will govern the preparation of our financial statements. These changes could materially and adversely affect our reported financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in restating prior period financial statements. Similarly, these changes could materially and adversely affect our tenants’ reported financial condition or results of operations and affect their preferences regarding leasing real estate.

The FASB is considering various changes to GAAP, some of which may be significant, as part of a joint effort with the IASB to converge accounting standards. In particular, FASB issued a new accounting standard that requires companies to capitalize all leases on their balance sheets by recognizing a lessee’s rights and obligations. For public companies, this new standard will be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Many companies that account for certain leases on an “off balance sheet” basis would be required to account for such leases “on balance sheet” upon adoption of this rule. This change removes many of the differences in the way companies account for owned property and leased property, and could have a material effect on various aspects of our tenants’ businesses, including their credit quality and the factors they consider in deciding whether to own or lease properties. Additionally, it could cause companies that lease properties to prefer shorter lease terms in an effort to reduce the leasing liability required to be recorded on their balance sheet. This new standard could also make lease renewal options less attractive, because, under certain circumstances, the rule would require a tenant to assume that a renewal right will be exercised and accrue a liability relating to the longer lease term.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR INDEBTEDNESS

We are in default of payment obligations under certain of our indebtedness.

On January 16, 2019 , our indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries as borrowers under the Shopko CMBS Loan Agreements defaulted on the loans secured by Shopko assets when those entities ceased to make interest payments as a result

of Shopko ceasing to pay its rent obligations following its bankruptcy filing. The full outstanding principal amount of $157.4 million under the Shopko CMBS Loan Agreements immediately became due and payable, and interest is accruing at the default rate of LIBOR plus 12.5% on the original loan portion and LIBOR plus 18.0% on the mezzanine loan portion. On March 1, 2019, the lenders foreclosed on the equity of the entity that owns the four property-owning subsidiaries.

We have have a significant amount of indebtedness.

As of December 31, 2018 , we had approximately $2.18 billion aggregate principal amount of indebtedness outstanding, of which $2.02 billion incurs interest at a fixed rate. We may also incur significant additional debt to finance future investment activities. As of December 31, 2018 , our Adjusted Debt to Annualized Adjusted EBITDA re ratio was 12.6x , our Adjusted Debt + Preferred to Annualized Adjusted EBITDA re ratio was 13.6x and our Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio was 1.4x , each of which include an adjustment to reflect the impact of Shopko's complete default on its payments to us. Our Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio does not reflect the impact of our amortizing debt principal payments. Payments of principal and interest on borrowings may leave us with insufficient cash resources to meet our cash needs or make the distributions to our shareholders necessary to maintain our REIT qualification. Our level of debt and the limitations imposed on us by our debt agreements could have significant adverse consequences, including the following:

Changes in our leverage ratios may also negatively impact the market price of our equity or debt securities. Furthermore, foreclosures could create taxable income without accompanying cash proceeds, which could hinder our ability to meet the REIT distribution requirements imposed by the Code.

Current market conditions could adversely affect our ability to refinance existing indebtedness or obtain additional financing for growth on acceptable terms or at all.

Over the last few years, the credit markets have experienced significant price volatility, displacement and liquidity disruptions, including the bankruptcy, insolvency or restructuring of certain financial institutions. These circumstances have materially impacted liquidity in the financial markets, making financing terms for borrowers less attractive, and in certain cases, have resulted in the unavailability of various types of debt financing. As a result, we may be unable to obtain debt financing on favorable terms or at all or fully refinance maturing indebtedness with new indebtedness. Reductions in our available borrowing capacity or inability to obtain credit when required or when business conditions warrant could materially and adversely affect us.

Furthermore, if prevailing interest rates or other factors at the time of refinancing result in higher interest rates upon refinancing, then the interest expense relating to that refinanced indebtedness would increase. Higher interest rates on newly incurred debt may negatively impact us as well. If interest rates increase, our interest costs and overall costs

of capital will increase, which could materially and adversely affect us. Total debt service, including scheduled principal maturities and interest, for 2019 and 2020 is $314.6 million and $491.4 million , respectively.

Our financing arrangements involve balloon payment obligations.

Our financings require us to make a lump-sum or “balloon” payment at maturity. In addition, there are principal amortization payments of $110.8 million due under our debt instruments prior to January 1, 2022 . Our ability to make any balloon payment is uncertain and may depend on our ability to obtain additional financing or our ability to sell our properties. At the time the balloon payment is due, we may or may not be able to refinance the balloon payment on terms as favorable as the original loan or sell our properties at a price sufficient to make the balloon payment, if at all. If the balloon payment is refinanced at a higher rate, it will reduce or eliminate any income from our properties. Our inability to meet a balloon payment obligation, through refinancing or sale proceeds, or refinancing on less attractive terms could materially and adversely affect us.

The agreements governing our indebtedness contain restrictions and covenants which may limit our ability to enter into or obtain funding for certain transactions, operate our business or make distributions to our common shareholders.

The agreements governing our indebtedness contain restrictions and covenants that limit or will limit our ability to operate our business. These covenants, as well as any additional covenants to which we may be subject in the future because of additional indebtedness, could cause us to forgo investment opportunities, reduce or eliminate distributions to our common shareholders or obtain financing that is more expensive than financing we could obtain if we were not subject to the covenants. In addition, the agreements may have cross default provisions, which provide that a default under one of our financing agreements would lead to a default on some or all of our debt financing agreements.

If an event of default occurs under our current or future CMBS loans, if the master tenants at the properties that secure such CMBS loans fail to maintain certain EBITDAR ratios, or if an uncured monetary default exists under the master leases, such as in the case of the Shopko CMBS Loan Agreements, then a portion of or all of the cash which would otherwise be distributed to us may be restricted by our lenders and unavailable to us until the terms are cured or the debt refinanced. If the financial performance of the collateral for our indebtedness under our Master Trust 2014 fails to achieve certain financial performance criteria, cash from such collateral may be unavailable to us until the terms are cured or the debt refinanced. Such cash sweep triggering events have occurred previously and may be ongoing from time to time. The occurrence of these events limit the amount of cash available to us for use in our business and could limit or eliminate our ability to make distributions to our common shareholders.

The covenants and other restrictions under our debt agreements affect, among other things, our ability to:

Additionally, we must comply with certain covenants in order to incur additional leverage under our Master Trust 2014. All of these restrictions may adversely affect our operating and financial flexibility and may limit our ability to respond to changes in our business or competitive environment, all of which may materially and adversely affect us.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR MANAGER

We depend on our Manager to conduct our business and any material adverse change in its financial condition or our relationship with our Manager could have a material adverse effect on our business and ability to achieve our investment objectives.

We have no employees. We are completely reliant on our Manager for the effective operation of our business, which has discretion regarding the implementation of our operating policies and strategies, subject to the supervision of our Board of Trustees. Our officers and other individuals who perform services for us are employees of our Manager, including certain key employees of our Manager whose continued service is not guaranteed. Our Manager may suffer or become distracted by adverse financial or operational problems in connection with our Manager’s business and activities unrelated to us and over which we have no control. Should our Manager fail to allocate sufficient resources to perform its responsibilities to us for any reason, we may be unable to achieve our investment objectives or to pay distributions to our shareholders.

Lastly, we are subject to the risk that our Manager may terminate the Asset Management Agreement and that we will not be able to find a suitable replacement for our Manager in a timely manner, at a reasonable cost or at all. Our Manager may terminate our Asset Management Agreement without cause upon 180-day notice prior to the expiration of the original term or any renewal term. Our Manager may terminate our Asset Management Agreement upon 60 days’ prior written notice for cause in the event that we are in default in the performance or observance of any material term, condition or covenant contained in our Asset Management Agreement and such default continues for a period of 30 days after such notice specifying such default and requesting that the same be remedied within 30 days, or effective immediately concurrently with or within 90 days following a Change in Control or a non-cause termination of the Property Management and Servicing Agreement, in each case upon 30 days’ notice to us. Furthermore, if the Asset Management Agreement is terminated for any reason, our Manager may resign as property manager and special servicer of Master Trust 2014, subject to certain conditions, which could adversely our results of operations and financial condition.

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

There are conflicts of interest in our relationship with our Manager insofar as our Manager and its parent, Spirit, have investment objectives that overlap with our investment objectives. Spirit has instituted a proprietary Spirit Property Ranking Model that our Manager will also apply to our portfolio. The Spirit Property Ranking Model is used annually to rank all properties across twelve factors and weightings, consisting of both real estate quality scores and credit underwriting criteria, in order to benchmark property quality, identify asset recycling opportunities and to enhance disposition decisions. Spirit also updates the Spirit Heat Map that will be used for us and Spirit, which analyzes tenant industries across Porter’s Five Forces and potential causes of technological disruption to identify tenant industries which Spirit believes to have good fundamentals for future performance. Our Manager will use an “every other” rotation system when considering potential investments by Spirit and us, subject to available liquidity and certain other criteria. As a result, we may not be presented with certain investment opportunities that may be appropriate for us. Additionally, we own real estate assets in the same geographic regions as Spirit and may compete with it for tenants. This competition may affect our ability to attract and retain tenants and may reduce the rent we are able to charge.

The ability of our Manager and its officers and employees to engage in other business activities, subject to the terms of our Asset Management Agreement with our Manager, may reduce the amount of time our Manager, its officers or other employees spend managing us. In addition, we may engage (subject to our investment manual and conflicts of interest policy) in material transactions with our Manager or Spirit, which may present an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. In order to avoid any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest with our Manager or Spirit, we adopted a conflicts of interest policy to address specifically some of the conflicts relating to our activities. However, there is no assurance that this policy will be adequate to address all of the conflicts of interest that may arise or to address such conflicts in a manner that is favorable to us.

It is possible that actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest could give rise to investor dissatisfaction, litigation or regulatory enforcement actions. Appropriately dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and difficult, and our reputation could be damaged if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with one or more potential, actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Regulatory scrutiny of, or litigation in connection with, conflicts of interest could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, which could materially adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including difficulty in raising additional funds, a reluctance of counterparties to do business with us, a decrease in the prices of our equity securities and a resulting risk of litigation and regulatory enforcement actions.

Certain terms of our Asset Management Agreement could make it difficult and costly to terminate our Manager and could delay or prevent a change of control transaction.

T he initial term of our Asset Management Agreement will be three years from its effective date, with automatic one-year renewal terms on each anniversary date thereof, unless previously terminated by us or by our Manager. In the event of a termination of our Asset Management Agreement by us without cause or a termination for cause by our Manager for cause (including upon a Change in Control, as defined elsewhere in this information statement), our Manager will be entitled to a termination fee equal to 1.75 times the sum of (x) the management fee for the 12 full calendar months preceding the effective termination date, plus (y) all fees due to the Manager or its affiliates under the Property Management and Servicing Agreement for the 12 full calendar months preceding the effective termination date. Additionally, our Manager will receive a promoted interest pursuant to our Asset Management Agreement based on our performance and our ability to generate total shareholder return, due upon the earlier of (i) a termination of our Asset Management Agreement by us without cause, (ii) a termination of our Asset Management Agreement by our Manager for cause (including upon a Change in Control), and (iii) the date that is 36 full calendar months after the distribution date. The termination fee and promoted interest will increase the cost to us of terminating our Asset

Management Agreement and may make termination more difficult. Additionally, the termination fee and promoted interest could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a Change in Control that would otherwise be economically attractive to us.

The offer to purchase feature of the Series A preferred shares owned by our Manager could affect change of control transactions.

Our Manager owns Series A preferred shares, which may give it different incentives from our common shareholders in a change of control transaction. Upon the occurrence of a Change of Control (as defined), we must offer to purchase the Series A preferred shares held by our Manager at the liquidation preference, plus any accrued and unpaid dividends to, but not including, the payment date. As such, our Manager might be incentivized to facilitate a Change of Control even if such Change of Control might not otherwise prove beneficial to our common shareholders. At the same time, the offer to purchase feature of the Series A preferred shares held by our Manager may have the effect of discouraging a third party from making an acquisition proposal for our company or of delaying, deferring or preventing a Change of Control if we do not have sufficient cash to complete such offer to purchase, under circumstances that otherwise could provide our common shareholders with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-current market price or that our common shareholders may otherwise believe is in their best interests.

We must pay a base management fee to our Manager regardless of our performance.

Our Manager is entitled to a substantial base management fee from us for the first three years, regardless of the performance of our portfolio. Our Manager’s entitlement to a base fee, which is not based upon performance metrics or goals, might reduce its incentive to devote its time and effort to seeking investments that maximize total returns to our shareholders. This in turn could negatively impact both our ability to make distributions to our shareholders and the market price of our common shares.

We do not own the Spirit name and may not be able to continue to use the Spirit name in the future.

Under our Asset Management Agreement, we and our affiliates have a royalty-free, non-exclusive and nontransferable license to use the name “Spirit”. Pursuant to the Asset Management Agreement, we have a right to use this name for so long as Spirit Realty, L.P. (or an affiliate thereof) serves as our Manager. The Manager and its affiliates retain the right to continue using the “Spirit” name. We will be unable to preclude the Manager or its affiliates from licensing or transferring the ownership of the “Spirit” name to third parties, some of whom may compete with us. Consequently, we will be unable to prevent any damage to goodwill that may occur as a result of the activities of the Manager or others. Furthermore, in the event that our Asset Management Agreement is terminated, we and our affiliates will be required to, among other things, change our name. Any of these events could disrupt our recognition in the market place, damage any goodwill we may have generated and otherwise harm our business.

RISKS RELATED TO THE SPIN-OFF

Prior to the Spin-off, we had no history operating as an independent company, and most of our historical financial information is not necessarily representative of the results that we would have achieved as a separate, publicly traded company and may not be a reliable indicator of our future results.

Most of the historical information we have included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including for the fiscal years ended 2016, 2017 and six months ended June 30, 2018, has been derived from Spirit’s consolidated financial statements and accounting records and does not necessarily reflect what our financial position, results of operation or cash flows would have been had we been a separate, stand-alone company during those periods presented, or those that we will achieve in the future. Our cost structure, management, financing and business operations are significantly different as a result of recently operating as an independent, externally-managed public company. These changes result in increased costs, including, but not limited to, fees paid to our Manager, legal, accounting, compliance and other costs associated with being a public company.

Certain of our agreements with Spirit may not reflect terms that would have resulted from arm’s-length negotiations among unaffiliated third parties.

Certain of the agreements related to the Spin-off, including the Separation and Distribution Agreement and Management Agreement, were prepared in the context of the Spin-off while we were still part of Spirit and, accordingly, did not result from arm’s-length negotiations among unaffiliated third parties and, therefore, may not reflect terms that would have resulted from an arm's-length negotiation. The terms of the agreements prepared in the context of our Spin-off related

to, among other things, allocation of assets, liabilities, rights, indemnifications and other obligations among Spirit and us.

The ownership by our executive officers and some of our trustees of shares of common stock, options, or other equity awards of Spirit may create, or may create the appearance of, conflicts of interest.

Some of our trustees and employees of the Manager own common stock or options to purchase common stock of Spirit, or any other equity awards, which creates, or may create, the appearance of conflicts of interest when these trustees and officers are faced with decisions regarding transaction between Spirit and us, or our Manager and us, that could have different implications for Spirit or our Manager, as applicable, than they do for us.

RISKS RELATED TO OWNERSHIP OF OUR COMMON SHARES AND OUR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Changes in market interest rates may adversely impact the value of our common shares .

The market price of our common shares will generally be influenced by the dividend yield on our common shares (as a percentage of the price of our common shares) relative to market interest rates. An increase in market interest rates, which are currently at low levels relative to historical rates, may lead prospective purchasers of shares of our common shares to expect a higher dividend yield. However, higher market interest rates would likely increase our borrowing costs and potentially decrease funds available for distribution. Thus, higher market interest rates could cause the market price of our common shares to decrease.

The market price and trading volume of our common shares may fluctuate or decline.

The market price and trading volume of our common shares may fluctuate widely due to various factors, including:

We may issue shares of our common shares or other securities without shareholder approval, including shares issued to satisfy REIT dividend distribution requirements. Our existing shareholders have no preemptive rights to acquire any of these securities, and any issuance of equity securities by us may dilute shareholder investment.

Broad market fluctuations could negatively impact the market price of our common shares.

The stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market price of the common equity of many companies in industries similar or related to ours and that have been unrelated to these companies’ operating performances. These broad market fluctuations could reduce the market price of our common shares. Furthermore, our operating results and prospects may be below the expectations of public market analysts and investors or may be lower than those of companies with comparable market capitalizations. Either of these factors could lead to a material decline in the per share trading price of our common shares.

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

We intend to make quarterly distributions of an amount at least equal to all or substantially all of our REIT taxable income to holders of our common shares out of assets legally available therefore. We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and our ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors described in this Annual Report. Distributions will be authorized by our Board of Trustees and declared by us based upon a number of factors, including actual results of operations, restrictions under Delaware law or any applicable debt covenants, our financial condition, our taxable income, the annual distribution requirements under the REIT provisions of the Code, our operating expenses and other factors our Board of Trustees deems relevant. We cannot assure you that we will achieve investment results that will allow us to make a specified level of cash distributions or year-to-year increases in cash distributions in the future.

Furthermore, we may elect not to maintain our REIT status, subject to the requirements of the Tax Matters Agreement, in which case we would no longer be required to make distributions in order to maintain our REIT status (as described below under "Risks Related to Taxes and Our Status as a REIT"). Moreover, even if we do elect to maintain our REIT status, we may elect to comply with the applicable requirements by, after completing various procedural steps, distributing, under certain circumstances, a portion of the required amount in the form of our common shares in lieu of cash. If we elect not to maintain our REIT status or to satisfy any required distributions in shares of common shares in lieu of cash, such action could negatively affect our business and financial condition as well as the price of our common shares. No assurance can be given that we will pay any dividends on our common shares in the future.

Future offerings of additional debt securities, which would be senior to our common shares upon liquidation, and/or preferred equity securities that may be senior to our common shares for purposes of distributions or upon liquidation, may materially and adversely affect the market price of our common shares.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making offerings of preferred equity securities or additional debt securities (or causing our Operating Partnership to issue debt securities). Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and preferred shares and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive distributions of our available assets prior to our common shareholders. Additionally, any additional convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common shares and may result in dilution to owners of our common shares. Our common shareholders are not entitled to preemptive rights or other protections against dilution. Our preferred shares, if issued, could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on distribution payments that could limit our ability to make distributions to our common shareholders. In addition, our common shares ranks junior to our Series A preferred shares. Our outstanding Series A preferred shares also have a preference upon our dissolution, liquidation or winding up in respect of assets available for distribution to our common shareholders. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Our common shareholders bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the per share trading price of our common shares.

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

Your percentage ownership of common shares may be diluted in the future because of equity awards that we expect to be granted to our Manager, to the directors, officers and employees of our Manager who perform services for us, and to our trustees and officers, as well as other equity instruments. Our Board of Trustees approved an equity incentive plan (the "2018 Incentive Award Plan"), providing for the grant of equity-based awards, under which we reserved 3,645,000 shares of our common shares for issuance. The issuance of these shares of common shares and other potential issuances are likely to have a dilutive effect on your ownership percentage.

We are an “emerging growth company” and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common shares less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and we may choose to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of SOX, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We may choose to take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company. We cannot predict if investors will find our common shares less attractive if we choose to rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common shares and our share price may be more volatile.

We will remain an emerging growth company for up to five years, although we may lose that status sooner. We would cease to qualify as an emerging growth company on the earliest of (i) the last day of any fiscal year in which we have more than $1.07 billion of revenue, (ii) the last day of any fiscal year in which we have more than $700.0 million in market value of our common shares held by non-affiliates as of June 30 of such fiscal year and (iii) the date on which we issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a rolling three-year period.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We may choose to elect to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, if we do, we would be subject to the different new or revised accounting standards than public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

To the extent that we rely on any of the exemptions available to emerging growth companies, you will receive less information about our executive compensation and internal control over financial reporting than issuers that are not emerging growth companies. If some investors find our common shares to be less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common shares and our share price may be more volatile.

Our declaration of trust and bylaws and Maryland law contain provisions that may delay, defer or prevent a change of control transaction, even if such a change in control may be in the interest of our shareholders.

Our declaration of trust contains certain restrictions on ownership and transfer of our common shares. Our declaration of trust contains various provisions that are intended to preserve our qualification as a REIT and, subject to certain exceptions, authorize our trustees to take such actions as are necessary or appropriate to preserve our qualification as a REIT. For example, our declaration of trust prohibits the actual, beneficial or constructive ownership by any person of more than 9.8% in value of the aggregate of our outstanding shares of all classes and series, or more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of our outstanding common shares or any class or series of our outstanding preferred shares. Our Board of Trustees, in its sole and absolute discretion, may exempt a person, prospectively or retroactively, from these ownership limits if certain conditions are satisfied. The restrictions on ownership and transfer of our common shares may:

We could increase the number of authorized shares of common shares of beneficial interest, classify and reclassify unissued shares of beneficial interest and issue shares of beneficial interest without shareholder approval. Our Board of Trustees, without shareholder approval, has the power under our declaration of trust to amend our declaration of trust to increase the aggregate number of shares of beneficial interest or the number of shares of beneficial interest of any class or series that we are authorized to issue, to authorize us to issue authorized but unissued common shares or preferred shares and to classify or reclassify any unissued common shares or preferred shares into one or more classes or series of shares of beneficial interest and to set the terms of such newly classified or reclassified shares. As a result, we may issue one or more series or classes of common shares or preferred shares with preferences, dividends, powers and rights, voting or otherwise, that are senior to, or otherwise conflict with, the rights of our common shareholders. Although our Board of Trustees has no such intention at the present time, it could establish a class or series of common shares or preferred shares that could, depending on the terms of such series, delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change of control that might involve a premium price for our common shares or otherwise be in the best interest of our shareholders.

Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit changes in control, which may discourage third parties from conducting a tender offer or seeking other change of control transactions that could involve a premium price for our common shares or that our shareholders otherwise believe to be in their best interest. For more information regarding these provisions, see “Certain Provisions of Maryland Law and Our Declaration of Trust and Bylaws.” Such provisions include the following:

As permitted by Maryland law, we have elected, pursuant to provisions in our declaration of trust, to opt out of the Maryland Business Combination Act and to exempt any acquisition of our common shares from the Maryland Control

Share Acquisition Act. Any amendment to or repeal of either of these provisions of our declaration of trust must be approved by our shareholders by the affirmative vote of a majority of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter. In the event that either of these provisions of our declaration of trust are amended or revoked by our shareholders, we would be subject to the Maryland Business Combination Act and/or the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act, as the case may be.

Certain provisions of Maryland law permit our Board of Trustees, without shareholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our declaration of trust or bylaws, to implement certain corporate governance provisions, some of which (for example, a classified board) are not currently applicable to us. These provisions may have the effect of limiting or precluding a third party from making an unsolicited acquisition proposal for us or of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us under circumstances that otherwise could be in the best interests of our shareholders. Our declaration of trust contains a provision whereby we elect, at such time as we become eligible to do so, to be subject to the provisions of Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL, or Subtitle 8, relating to the filling of vacancies on our Board of Trustees. However, we have opted out of the provision of Subtitle 8 that would have permitted our Board of Trustees to unilaterally divide itself into classes with staggered terms of three years each (also referred to as a classified board) without shareholder approval, and we are prohibited from electing to be subject to such provision of Subtitle 8 unless such election is first approved by our shareholders by the affirmative vote of a majority of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter. We do not currently have a classified board.

Our Board of Trustees may change our investment and financing policies without shareholder approval and we may become more highly leveraged, which may increase our risk of default under our debt obligations.

Our investment and financing policies are exclusively determined by our Board of Trustees. Accordingly, our shareholders do not control these policies. Further, our organizational documents do not limit the amount or percentage of indebtedness, funded or otherwise, that we may incur. Our Board of Trustees may alter or eliminate our current policy on borrowing at any time without shareholder approval. If this policy changed, we could become more highly leveraged, which could result in an increase in our debt service. Higher leverage also increases the risk of default on our obligations. In addition, a change in our investment policies, including the manner in which we allocate our resources across our portfolio or the types of assets in which we seek to invest, may increase our exposure to interest rate risk, real estate market fluctuations and liquidity risk. Changes to our policies with regards to the foregoing could materially and adversely affect us.

Our rights and the rights of our shareholders to take action against our trustees and officers are limited.

As permitted by Maryland law, our declaration of trust limits the liability of our trustees and officers to us and our shareholders for money damages, except for liability resulting from:

As a result, we and our shareholders have rights against our trustees and officers that are more limited than might otherwise exist. Accordingly, in the event that actions taken in good faith by any of our trustees or officers impede the performance of our company, our shareholders’ and our ability to recover damages from such trustee or officer will be limited. In addition, our declaration of trust authorizes us to obligate our company, and our bylaws require us, to indemnify our trustees and officers (and, with the approval of our Board of Trustees, any employee or agent of ours) for actions taken by them in those and certain other capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law.

We are a holding company with no direct operations and will rely on funds received from the Operating Partnership to pay liabilities.

We are a holding company and conduct substantially all of our operations through the Operating Partnership. We do not have, apart from an interest in the Operating Partnership, any independent operations. As a result, we rely on distributions from the Operating Partnership to pay any dividends we might declare on our common shares. We also rely on distributions from the Operating Partnership to meet any of our obligations, including any tax liability on taxable income allocated to us from the Operating Partnership. In addition, because we are a holding company, shareholder claims will be structurally subordinated to all existing and future liabilities and obligations (whether or not for borrowed money) of the Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries. Therefore, in the event of our bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization, our assets and those of the Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries will be able to satisfy the claims of our shareholders only after all of our and the Operating Partnership’s and its subsidiaries’ liabilities and obligations have been paid in full.

We own directly or indirectly 100% of the interests in the Operating Partnership. However, in the future, we may issue partnership interests of the Operating Partnership to third parties. Such issuances would reduce our ownership in the Operating Partnership. Because our shareholders will not directly own partnership interests of the Operating Partnership, they will not have any voting rights with respect to any such issuances or other partnership level activities of the Operating Partnership.

Conflicts of interest could arise in the future between the interests of our shareholders and the interests of holders of partnership interests in the Operating Partnership, which may impede business decisions that could benefit our shareholders.

Conflicts of interest could arise in the future as a result of the relationships between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and the Operating Partnership or any future partner thereof, on the other. Our trustees and officers have duties to our company under applicable Maryland law in connection with the management of our company. At the same time, one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries, OP Holdings, as the general partner of the Operating Partnership, has fiduciary duties and obligations to the Operating Partnership and its future limited partners under Delaware law and the partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership in connection with the management of the Operating Partnership. The fiduciary duties and obligations of OP Holdings, as general partner of the Operating Partnership, and its future partners may come into conflict with the duties of the trustees and officers of our company.

Under the terms of the partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership, if there is a conflict between the interests of our shareholders on one hand and any future limited partners on the other, we will endeavor in good faith to resolve the conflict in a manner not adverse to either our shareholders or any future limited partners; provided, however, that for so long as we own a controlling interest in the Operating Partnership, any conflict that cannot be resolved in a manner not adverse to either our shareholders or any future limited partners shall be resolved in favor of our shareholders.

The partnership agreement also provides that the general partner will not be liable to the Operating Partnership, its partners or any other person bound by the partnership agreement for monetary damages for losses sustained, liabilities incurred or benefits not derived by the Operating Partnership or any future limited partner, except for liability for the general partner’s intentional harm or gross negligence. Moreover, the partnership agreement provides that the Operating Partnership is required to indemnify the general partner and its members, managers, managing members, officers, employees, agents and designees from and against any and all claims that relate to the operations of the Operating Partnership, except (1) if the act or omission of the person was material to the matter giving rise to the action and either was committed in bad faith or was the result of active or deliberate dishonesty, (2) for any transaction for which the indemnified party received an improper personal benefit, in money, property or services or otherwise in violation or breach of any provision of the partnership agreement or (3) in the case of a criminal proceeding, if the indemnified person had reasonable cause to believe that the act or omission was unlawful.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR TAXES AND OUR STATUS AS A REIT

Failure to qualify as a REIT would materially and adversely affect us and the value of our common shares.

We will elect to be taxed as a REIT and believe we will be organized and operate in a manner that will allow us to qualify and to remain qualified as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2018. We have not requested and do not plan to request a ruling from the IRS that we qualify as a REIT and the statements in this Annual Report are not binding on the IRS or any court. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that we will qualify as a REIT or that we will remain qualified as such in the future. If we fail to qualify as a REIT or lose our REIT status, we will face significant tax consequences that would substantially reduce our cash available for distribution to our shareholders for each of the years involved because:

Any such corporate tax liability could be substantial and would reduce our cash available for, among other things, our operations and distributions to shareholders. In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we will not be required to make distributions to our shareholders. As a result of all these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT also could impair our ability to expand our business and raise capital, and could materially and adversely affect the trading price of our common shares.

Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions for which there are only limited judicial and administrative interpretations. The determination of various factual matters and circumstances not entirely within our control may affect our ability to qualify as a REIT. In order to qualify as a REIT, we must satisfy a number of requirements, including requirements regarding the ownership of our common shares, requirements regarding the composition of our assets and a requirement that at least 95% of our gross income in any year must be derived from qualifying sources, such as “rents from real property.” Also, we must make distributions to shareholders aggregating annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gains. In addition, legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions may materially and adversely affect our investors, our ability to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes or the desirability of an investment in a REIT relative to other investments.

We own and may acquire direct or indirect interests in one or more entities that have elected or will elect to be taxed as REITs under the Code (each, a “Subsidiary REIT”). A Subsidiary REIT is subject to the various REIT qualification requirements and other limitations described herein that are applicable to us. If a Subsidiary REIT were to fail to qualify as a REIT, then (i) that Subsidiary REIT would become subject to federal income tax, (ii) shares in such Subsidiary REIT would cease to be qualifying assets for purposes of the asset tests applicable to REITs, and (iii) it is possible that we would fail certain of the asset tests applicable to REITs, in which event we would fail to qualify as a REIT unless we could avail ourselves of certain relief provisions.

Even if we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we may be subject to some federal, state and local income, property and excise taxes on our income or property and, in certain cases, a 100% penalty tax, in the event we sell property as a dealer. In addition, our TRSs will be subject to income tax as regular corporations in the jurisdictions in which they operate.

If Spirit failed to qualify as a REIT during certain periods prior to the Spin-Off, we would be prevented from electing to qualify as a REIT.

Under applicable Treasury Regulations, if Spirit failed to qualify as a REIT during certain periods prior to the Spin-Off, unless Spirit’s failure was subject to relief under U.S. federal income tax laws, we would be prevented from electing to qualify as a REIT prior to the fifth calendar year following the year in which Spirit failed to qualify.

If certain of our subsidiaries, including the Operating Partnership, fail to qualify as partnerships or disregarded entities for federal income tax purposes, we would cease to qualify as a REIT and suffer other adverse consequences.

One or more of our subsidiaries may be treated as a partnership or disregarded entity for federal income tax purposes and, therefore, will not be subject to federal income tax on its income. Instead, each of its partners or its owner, as applicable, which may include us, will be allocated, and may be required to pay tax with respect to, such partner’s or owner’s share of its income. We cannot assure you that the IRS will not challenge the status of any subsidiary partnership or limited liability company in which we own an interest as a disregarded entity or partnership for federal income tax purposes, or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. If the IRS were successful in treating any subsidiary partnership or limited liability company as an entity taxable as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we could fail to meet the gross income tests and certain of the asset tests applicable to REITs and, accordingly, we would likely cease to qualify as a REIT. Also, the failure of any subsidiary partnerships or limited liability company to qualify as a disregarded entity or partnership for applicable income tax purposes could cause it to become subject to federal and state corporate income tax, which would reduce significantly the amount of cash available for debt service and for distribution to its partners or members, including us.

Our ownership of TRSs is subject to certain restrictions, and we will be required to pay a 100% penalty tax on certain income or deductions if our transactions with our TRSs are not conducted on arm’s-length terms.

From time to time we may own interests in one or more TRSs. A TRS is a corporation, other than a REIT, in which a REIT directly or indirectly holds shares and that has made a joint election with such REIT to be treated as a TRS. If a TRS owns more than 35% of the total voting power or value of the outstanding securities of another corporation, such other corporation will also be treated as a TRS. Other than some activities relating to lodging and health care facilities, a TRS may generally engage in any business, including the provision of customary or non-customary services to tenants of its parent REIT. A TRS is subject to federal income tax as a regular C corporation. In addition, a 100% excise tax will be imposed on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis.

A REIT’s ownership of securities of a TRS is not subject to the 5% or 10% asset tests applicable to REITs. Not more than 25% of the value of our total assets may be represented by securities (including securities of TRSs), other than those securities includable in the 75% asset test, and not more than 20% of the value of our total assets may be represented by securities of TRSs. We anticipate that the aggregate value of the shares and securities of any TRS and other nonqualifying assets that we own will be less than 20% of the value of our total assets, and we will monitor the value of these investments to ensure compliance with applicable ownership limitations. In addition, we intend to structure our transactions with any TRSs that we own to ensure that they are entered into on arm’s-length terms to avoid incurring the 100% excise tax described above. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be able to comply with the above limitations or to avoid application of the 100% excise tax discussed above.

We may be forced to borrow funds to maintain our REIT status, and the unavailability of such capital on favorable terms at the desired times, or at all, may cause us to curtail our investment activities and/or to dispose of assets at inopportune times, which could materially and adversely affect us.

To qualify as a REIT, we generally must distribute to our shareholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income each year, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gains, and we will be subject to regular corporate income taxes on our undistributed taxable income to the extent that we distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and including any net capital gains, each year. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which distributions paid by us in any calendar year are less than the sum of 85% of our ordinary income, 95% of our capital gain net income and 100% of our undistributed income from prior years. We could have a potential distribution shortfall as a result of, among other things, differences in timing between the actual receipt of cash and recognition of income for federal income tax purposes, or the effect of non-deductible capital expenditures, the creation of reserves or required debt or amortization payments. Also, the ability of Master Trust 2014 to make cash distributions is limited and, in some cases, could be eliminated entirely. In addition, as discussed in this Annual Report, our tenants, such as Shopko in connection with its bankruptcy filing, may experience a downturn in their business, and as a result may delay lease commencement, decline to extend a lease upon its expiration, fail to make rental payments when due, become insolvent or declare bankruptcy. In order to maintain REIT status and avoid the payment of income and excise taxes, we may need to borrow funds to meet the REIT distribution requirements. Our ability to borrow funds, however, may not be available on favorable terms or at all. Our access to third-party sources of capital depends on a number of factors, including our current debt levels, the market price of our common shares, and our current and potential future earnings. We cannot assure you that we will have access to such capital on favorable terms at the desired times, or at all, which may cause us to dispose of assets at inopportune times, and could materially and adversely affect us. Alternatively, we may make taxable in-kind distributions of our own shares, which may cause our shareholders to be required to pay income taxes with respect to such distributions in excess of any cash they receive, or we may be required to withhold taxes with respect to such distributions in excess of any cash our shareholders receive.

The IRS may treat sale-leaseback transactions as loans, which could jeopardize our REIT status or require us to make an unexpected distribution.

The IRS may take the position that specific sale-leaseback transactions that we treat as leases are not true leases for federal income tax purposes but are, instead, financing arrangements or loans. If a sale-leaseback transaction were so re-characterized, we might fail to satisfy the REIT asset tests, the income tests or distribution requirements and consequently lose our REIT status effective with the year of re-characterization unless we elect to make an additional distribution to maintain our REIT status. The primary risk relates to our loss of previously incurred depreciation expenses, which could affect the calculation of our REIT taxable income and could cause us to fail the REIT distribution test that requires a REIT to distribute at least 90% of its REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gain. In this circumstance, we may elect to distribute an additional dividend of the increased taxable income so as not to fail the REIT distribution test. This distribution would be paid to all shareholders at the time of declaration rather than the shareholders existing in the taxable year affected by the re-characterization.

Dividends payable by REITs generally do not qualify for the reduced tax rates available for some dividends, which may negatively affect the value of our shares.

Income from “qualified dividends” payable to U.S. shareholders that are individuals, trusts and estates are generally subject to tax at preferential rates, currently at a maximum federal rate of 20%. Dividends payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for the preferential tax rates applicable to qualified dividend income. Under the recently enacted 2017 Tax Legislation, however, U.S. shareholders that are individuals, trusts and estates generally may deduct up to 20% of the ordinary dividends (e.g., dividends not designated as capital gain dividends or qualified

dividend income) received from a REIT for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026. Although this deduction reduces the effective tax rate applicable to certain dividends paid by REITs (generally to 29.6% assuming the shareholder is subject to the 37% maximum rate), such tax rate is still higher than the tax rate applicable to corporate dividends that constitute qualified dividend income. Accordingly, investors who are individuals, trusts and estates may perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the shares of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could materially and adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including the per share trading price of our common shares.

The tax imposed on REITs engaging in “prohibited transactions” may limit our ability to engage in transactions which would be treated as sales for federal income tax purposes.

A REIT’s net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% penalty tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property, other than foreclosure property, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. Although we do not intend to hold any properties that would be characterized as held for sale to customers in the ordinary course of our business, unless a sale or disposition qualifies under certain statutory safe harbors, such characterization is a factual determination and no guarantee can be given that the IRS would agree with our characterization of our properties or that we will always be able to make use of the available safe harbors. Accordingly, these rules could limit our ability to execute sales of the Shopko assets or assets that collateralize Master Trust 2014 in accordance with our business strategy outlined herein.

Complying with REIT requirements may affect our profitability and may force us to liquidate or forgo otherwise attractive investments.

To qualify as a REIT, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the nature and diversification of our assets, the sources of our income and the amounts we distribute to our shareholders. We may be required to liquidate otherwise attractive investments in order to satisfy the asset and income tests or to qualify under certain statutory relief provisions. We also may be required to make distributions to shareholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. As a result, having to comply with the distribution requirement could cause us to: (1) sell assets in adverse market conditions; (2) borrow on unfavorable terms; or (3) distribute amounts that would otherwise be used for repayment of debt. Accordingly, satisfying the REIT requirements could materially and adversely affect us. Moreover, if we are compelled to liquidate our investments to meet any of these asset, income or distribution tests, or to repay obligations to our lenders, we may be unable to comply with one or more of the requirements applicable to REITs or may be subject to a 100% tax on any resulting gain if such sales constitute prohibited transactions.

Legislative or other actions affecting REITs could have a negative effect on us.

The rules dealing with federal income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Changes to the tax laws, with or without retroactive application, could materially and adversely affect our investors or us. We cannot predict how changes in the tax laws might affect our investors or us. New legislation, Treasury Regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions could significantly and negatively affect our ability to qualify as a REIT or the federal income tax consequences of such qualification, or the federal income tax consequences of an investment in us. Also, the law relating to the tax treatment of other entities, or an investment in other entities, could change, making an investment in such other entities more attractive relative to an investment in a REIT. The 2017 Tax Legislation has significantly changed the U.S. federal income taxation of U.S. businesses and their owners, including REITs and their stockholders. Changes made by the 2017 Tax Legislation that could affect us and our shareholders include:

Many of these changes that are applicable to us became effective with our 2018 taxable year, without any transition periods or grandfathering for existing transactions. The legislation is unclear in many respects and could be subject to potential amendments and technical corrections, as well as interpretations and implementing regulations by the Treasury and IRS, any of which could lessen or increase the impact of the legislation. In addition, it is unclear how these U.S. federal income tax changes will affect state and local taxation, which often uses federal taxable income as a starting point for computing state and local tax liabilities. While some of the changes made by the tax legislation may adversely affect us in one or more reporting periods and prospectively, other changes may be beneficial on a going forward basis. We continue to work with our tax advisors and auditors to determine the full impact that the 2017 Tax Legislation as a whole will have on us.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2.     Properties

Our diverse real estate portfolio at December 31, 2018 had: