rc_Current_Folio

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number: 001-35808

READY CAPITAL CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


Maryland	90-0729143
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

1251 Avenue of the Americas, 50th Floor, New York, NY 10020
(Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including Zip Code)
(212) 257-4600
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class

Trading Symbol(s)

Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share

7.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2023

6.50% Senior Notes due 2021

6.20% Senior Notes due 2026

RCA

RCP

RCB

New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S‑T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer ☐

Accelerated filer ☒

Non-accelerated filer ☐

Smaller reporting company ☐

Emerging growth company ☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b‑2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

As of June 30, 2019, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $471.0 million based on the closing sales price of the registrant’s common stock on June 28, 2019 as reported on the New York Stock Exchange.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date: The registrant has 52,027,326 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, outstanding as of March 5, 2020.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s proxy statement for the 2019 annual meeting of stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this annual report on Form 10-K.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Except where the context suggests otherwise, the terms “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Ready Capital Corporation and its subsidiaries. We make forward-looking statements in this annual report on Form 10-K within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). For these statements, we claim the protections of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in such Sections. Forward-looking statements are subject to substantial risks and uncertainties, many of which are difficult to predict and are generally beyond our control. These forward-looking statements include information about possible or assumed future results of our operations, financial condition, liquidity, plans and objectives. When we use the words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “plan,” “continue,” “intend,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “may,” “potential” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology, we intend to identify forward-looking statements. Statements regarding the following subjects, among others, may be forward-looking:

our investment objectives and business strategy;

our ability to obtain future financing arrangements;

our expected leverage;

our expected investments;

estimates or statements relating to, and our ability to make, future distributions;

our ability to compete in the marketplace;

the availability of attractive risk-adjusted investment opportunities in small to medium balance commercial loans (“SBC loans”), loans guaranteed by the U.S. Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) under its Section 7(a) loan program (the “SBA Section 7(a) Program”), mortgage backed securities (“MBS”), residential mortgage loans and other real estate-related investments that satisfy our investment objectives and strategies;

our ability to borrow funds at favorable rates;

market, industry and economic trends;

recent market developments and actions taken and to be taken by the U.S. Government, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Depositary Insurance Corporation, the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac” and together with Fannie Mae, the “GSEs”), the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”), Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) Mortgagee, U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”);

mortgage loan modification programs and future legislative actions;

our ability to maintain our qualification as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”);

our ability to maintain our exemption from qualification under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act” or “Investment Company Act”);

projected capital and operating expenditures;

availability of qualified personnel;

prepayment rates; and

projected default rates.

Our beliefs, assumptions and expectations can change as a result of many possible events or factors, not all of which are known to us or are within our control, including:

factors described in this annual report on Form 10‑K, including those set forth under the captions “Risk Factors” and “Business”;

applicable regulatory changes;

risks associated with acquisitions, including the acquisition of Owens Realty Mortgage, Inc. (“ORM”) and Knight Capital LLC (“Knight Capital”);

risks associated with achieving expected revenue synergies, cost savings and other benefits from acquisitions, including the acquisition of ORM and Knight Capital, and the increased scale of our Company;

general volatility of the capital markets;

changes in our investment objectives and business strategy;

the availability, terms and deployment of capital;

the availability of suitable investment opportunities;

our dependence on our external advisor, Waterfall Asset Management, LLC (“Waterfall” or our “Manager”), and our ability to find a suitable replacement if we or our Manager were to terminate the management agreement we have entered into with our Manager;

changes in our assets, interest rates or the general economy;

our expectations about the impact of natural disasters and public health epidemics, such as the coronavirus (COVID-19), on our business, results of operations and financial condition;

increased rates of default and/or decreased recovery rates on our investments;

changes in interest rates, interest rate spreads, the yield curve or prepayment rates; changes in prepayments of our assets;

limitations on our business as a result of our qualification as a REIT; and

the degree and nature of our competition, including competition for SBC loans, MBS, residential mortgage loans and other real estate-related investments that satisfy our investment objectives and strategies.

Upon the occurrence of these or other factors, our business, financial condition, liquidity and consolidated results of operations may vary materially from those expressed in, or implied by, any such forward-looking statements.

Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. These forward-looking statements apply only as of the date of this annual report on Form 10-K. We are not obligated, and do not intend, to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. See Item 1A, “Risk Factors” of this annual report on Form 10-K.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

GENERAL

Overview

We are a multi-strategy real estate finance company that originates, acquires, finances, and services SBC loans, SBA loans, residential mortgage loans, and to a lesser extent, MBS collateralized primarily by SBC loans, or other real estate-related investments. Our loans range in original principal amounts generally up to $35 million and are used by businesses to purchase real estate used in their operations or by investors seeking to acquire small multi-family, office, retail, mixed use or warehouse properties. Our origination and acquisition platforms consist of the following four operating segments:

Acquisitions. We acquire performing and non-performing SBC loans as part of our business strategy. We hold performing SBC loans to term, and we seek to maximize the value of the non-performing SBC loans acquired by us through borrower based resolution strategies. We typically acquire non-performing loans at a discount to their unpaid principal balance (“UPB”) when we believe that resolution of the loans will provide attractive risk-adjusted returns. We also acquire purchased future receivables through our Knight Capital platform.

SBC Originations. We originate SBC loans secured by stabilized or transitional investor properties using multiple loan origination channels through our wholly-owned subsidiary, ReadyCap Commercial, LLC (“ReadyCap Commercial”). These originated loans are generally held-for-investment or placed into securitization structures. Additionally, as part of this segment, we originate and service multi-family loan products under the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation’s Small Balance Loan Program (“Freddie Mac” and the “Freddie Mac program”). These originated loans are held for sale, then sold to Freddie Mac.

SBA Originations, Acquisitions and Servicing. We acquire, originate and service owner-occupied loans guaranteed by the SBA under its Section 7(a) loan program (the “SBA Section 7(a) Program”) through our wholly-owned subsidiary, ReadyCap Lending, LLC (“ReadyCap Lending”). We hold an SBA license as one of only 14 non-bank Small Business Lending Companies (“SBLCs”) and have been granted preferred lender status by the SBA. These originated loans are either held-for-investment, placed into securitization structures, or sold.

Residential Mortgage Banking. We operate our residential mortgage loan origination segment through our wholly-owned subsidiary, GMFS, LLC ("GMFS"). GMFS originates residential mortgage loans eligible to be purchased, guaranteed or insured by the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), Freddie Mac, Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) through retail, correspondent and broker channels. These originated loans are then sold to third parties, primarily agency lending programs.

Our objective is to provide attractive risk-adjusted returns to our stockholders, primarily through dividends and secondarily through capital appreciation. In order to achieve this objective, we continue to grow our investment portfolio and believe that the breadth of our full service real estate finance platform will allow us to adapt to market conditions and deploy capital to asset classes and segments with the most attractive risk-adjusted returns.

We are organized and conduct our operations to qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). So long as we qualify as a REIT, we are generally not subject to U.S. federal income tax on our net taxable income to the extent that we annually distribute all of our net taxable income to stockholders. We are organized in a traditional umbrella partnership REIT (“UpREIT”) format pursuant to which we serve as the general partner of, and conduct substantially all of our business through Sutherland Partners, LP, or our operating partnership. We also intend to operate our business in a manner that will permit us to be excluded from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act.

Our Manager

We are externally managed and advised by Waterfall, an SEC registered investment adviser. Formed in 2005, Waterfall specializes in acquiring, managing, servicing and financing SBC and residential mortgage loans, as well as asset backed securities (“ABS”) and MBS. Waterfall has extensive experience in performing and non-performing loan acquisition, resolution and financing strategies. Waterfall’s investment committee is chaired by Thomas Capasse and Jack Ross, who serve as our Chief Executive Officer and President, respectively. Messrs. Capasse and Ross, who are co-founders of Waterfall, each have over 30 years of experience in managing and financing a range of financial assets, including having executed the first public securitization of SBC loans in 1993, through a variety of credit and interest rate environments. Messrs. Capasse and Ross have worked together in the same organization for more than 30 years. They are supported by a team of approximately 150 investment and other professionals with extensive experience in commercial mortgage credit underwriting, distressed asset acquisition and financing, SBC loan originations, commercial property valuation, capital deployment, financing strategies and legal and financial matters impacting our business.

We rely on Waterfall’s expertise to establish investment strategies and in identifying loan acquisitions and origination opportunities. Waterfall uses the data and analytics developed through its experience as an owner of SBC loans and in implementing loss mitigation actions to support our origination activities and to develop our loan underwriting standards. Waterfall makes decisions based on a variety of factors, including expected risk-adjusted returns, credit fundamentals, liquidity, availability of financing, borrowing costs and macroeconomic conditions, as well as maintaining our REIT qualification and our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act.

Our Investment Strategy and Market Opportunities Across Our Operating Segments

Our investment strategy is to opportunistically expand our market presence in our acquisition and origination segments and further grow our SBC securitization capabilities which serve as a source of attractively priced, match-term financing. Capitalizing on our experience in underwriting and managing commercial real estate loans, we have grown our SBC and SBA origination and acquisition capabilities and selectively complimented our SBC strategy with residential agency mortgage originations. As such, we have become a full-service real estate finance platform and we believe that the breadth of our business allows us to adapt to market conditions and deploy capital in our asset classes with the most attractive risk-adjusted returns.

Our acquisition strategy complements our origination strategy by increasing our market intelligence in potential origination geographies, providing additional data to support our underwriting criteria and offering securitization market insight for various product offerings. The proprietary database on the causes of borrower default, loss severity, and market information that we developed from our SBC loan acquisition experience has served as the basis for the development of our SBC and SBA loan origination programs. Additionally, our origination strategy complements our acquisition strategy by providing additional captive refinancing options for our borrowers and further data to support our investment analysis while increasing our market presence with potential sellers of SBC assets.

The following table illustrates certain information with respect to our four business segments as of December 31, 2019.


	Acquisitions	SBC	SBA Originations,	Residential Mortgage
		Originations	Acquisitions and	Banking
			Servicing
Coordinating Affiliate / Manager	Waterfall, Knight Capital	ReadyCap Commercial	ReadyCap Lending	GMFS
Strategy	SBC loan acquisition, Purchased future receivables	SBC loan origination	SBA loan origination, acquisition and servicing	Residential mortgage origination and servicing
Gross Assets	$1.3 billion	$2.5 billion	$760.0 million	$330.4 million
% Equity Allocation	26.3%	58.8%	8.2%	6.7%
Personnel	307*	95	91	244

*Employees of Waterfall. Includes 150 employees of Knight Capital.

According to the Federal Reserve, the U.S. commercial mortgage market including multi-family residences, and nonfarm, nonresidential mortgages totaled approximately $4.5 trillion as of December 2019. The commercial mortgage market is largely bifurcated by loan size between “large balance” loans and “small balance” loans. Large balance commercial loans typically include those loans with original principal balances of at least $40 million and are primarily financed by insurance companies and commercial mortgage backed securities (“CMBS”) conduits. SBC loans typically include those loans with original principal amounts of between $500,000 and $35 million and are primarily financed by community and regional banks, specialty finance companies and loans guaranteed under the SBA loan programs.

SBC loans are used by small businesses to purchase real estate used in their operations or by investors seeking to acquire small multi-family, office, retail, mixed use or warehouse properties. SBC loans represent a special category of commercial mortgage loans, sharing both commercial and residential mortgage loan characteristics. SBC loans are typically secured by first mortgages on commercial properties or other business assets, but because SBC loans are often correlated to local housing markets and economic environments, aspects of residential mortgage credit analysis are utilized in the underwriting process. Most SBC loans are fully amortizing on a schedule of up to 30 years.

Our investment decisions will depend on prevailing market conditions and may change over time in response to opportunities available in different economic and capital market environments. As a result, we cannot predict the percentage of its equity that will be invested in any particular asset or strategy at any given time.

Our Loan Portfolio

The table below presents a summary of the sourcing of our loan assets as of December 31, 2019 (in thousands):


Loan Type (1)	Segment	UPB		% of Total UPB		Carrying Amount (2)		% of Total Carrying Amount
Acquired loans(3)	Acquisitions	$	1,036,083	24.2	%	$	1,028,450	24.2	%
Acquired transitional loans(3)	Acquisitions		74,302	1.7			73,762	1.7
Originated SBC loans	SBC Originations		1,178,713	27.5			1,191,174	28.0
Originated Freddie Mac loans(4)	SBC Originations		21,513	0.5			21,775	0.5
Originated Transitional loans	SBC Originations		1,093,443	25.5			1,084,570	25.5
Acquired SBA 7(a) loans	SBA Originations, Acquisitions and Servicing		336,393	7.8			308,560	7.3
Originated SBA 7(a) loans(4)	SBA Originations, Acquisitions and Servicing		409,808	9.6			405,942	9.5
Originated Residential Agency loans(4)	Residential Mortgage Banking		135,411	3.2			139,902	3.3
Total Loan portfolio		$	4,285,666	100.0	%	$	4,254,135	100.0	%
(1) Includes Loan assets of consolidated variable interest entities ("VIEs"). (2) Excludes specific and general allowance for loan losses. (3) Excludes real estate, held for sale. (4) Excludes MSR assets.

The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2019 related to our acquired loan portfolio (in thousands):


Contractual Status (1)	UPB		% of Total		Carrying Value (2)		% of Total
Current	$	1,043,604	94.0	%	$	1,037,974	94.4	%
30 - 59 days delinquent		42,566	3.8			41,830	3.8
60 - 89 days delinquent		4,338	0.4			4,064	0.4
90 - 179 days delinquent		5,486	0.5			6,287	0.6
180 + days delinquent		10,678	1.0			7,410	0.7
Bankruptcy / Foreclosure		3,713	0.3			1,773	0.2
Total	$	1,110,385	100.0	%	$	1,099,338	100.0	%
(1) Includes Loan assets of consolidated VIEs. (2) Excludes specific and general allowance for loan losses.

Waterfall’s extensive experience in securitization strategies for SBC loans dates to the first SBC ABS for performing loans and liquidating trusts for non-performing loans purchased from the Resolution Trust Corporation in 1993. We believe that in 2011, we were the first post-financial crisis issuer of SBC ABS and have since completed several SBC bond issuances backed by newly originated and acquired SBC and SBA 7(a) loan assets. The following table summarizes our acquired loan securitization activities:


Deal Name	Asset Class	Issuance	Bonds Issued (in $ millions)		Weighted Average Debt Cost
WVMT 2011-SBC1	SBC Acquired Loans - NPL	February 2011	$	40.5	7.0	%
WVMT 2011-SBC2	SBC Acquired Loans	March 2011		97.7	5.1
WVMT 2011-SBC3	SBC Acquired Loans - NPL	October 2011		143.4	6.4
SCML 2015-SBC4	SBC Acquired Loans - NPL	August 2015		125.4	4.0
SCMT 2017-SBC6	SBC Acquired Loans	August 2017		154.9	3.3
SCMT 2018-SBC7	SBC Acquired Loans	November 2018		217.0	4.7
SCMT 2019-SBC8	SBC Acquired Loans	June 2019		306.5	2.9
Total			$	1,085.4	4.3	%

In the fourth quarter of 2019, we acquired Knight Capital. Knight is a technology-driven platform that provides working capital to small and medium sized businesses across the U.S. Through this platform, we provide working capital advances to these businesses through the purchase of their future revenues. We enter into a contract with the business whereby we pay the business an upfront amount in return for a specific amount of the business’s future revenue receivables, known as payback amounts. The payback amounts are primarily received through daily payments initiated by automated clearing house transactions.

Our Loan Origination Platforms

We originate SBC loans generally ranging in initial principal amount of between $500,000 and $35 million, and typically with a duration of six years at origination. Our origination platform, which focuses on first mortgage loans, provides conventional SBC mortgage financing for stabilized and transitional SBC properties nationwide through the following programs:

First mortgage loans. Loans for the acquisition or refinancing of stabilized properties secured by traditional commercial properties such as multi-family, office, retail, mixed use or warehouse properties, which are often guaranteed by the property owners. The loans are typically amortizing and have maturities of five to twenty years.

Transitional loans. Loans for the acquisition of properties requiring more substantial expenditures for stabilization, secured by traditional commercial properties such as multi-family, office, retail, mixed use or warehouse properties which may be guaranteed by the property owners. The loans are typically interest-only and have maturities of two to four years.

Freddie Mac loans. Origination of loans ranging from $1 million to $7.5 million secured by multi-family properties through the recently launched Freddie Mac program. We sell qualifying loans to Freddie Mac, which, in turn, sells such loans to securitization structures..

SBA loans. Loans secured by real estate, machinery, equipment and inventory that are guaranteed, typically 75% under the SBA Section 7(a) Programs. SBA loans include personal guarantees of the borrower and are typically amortizing and have maturities of seven to twenty-five years.

Residential Loans. We are approved to originate and service Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae eligible loans through the residential mortgage loan programs. These include prime, subprime and alternative-A and alternative-B mortgage loans, which may be adjustable-rate, hybrid and/or fixed-rate residential mortgage loans and pay option adjustable rate mortgage loans (“ARMs”).

Our loan origination segments include the following: (i) SBC Originations (ii) SBA Originations and (iii) Residential Mortgage Originations.

SBC Originations

We operate our SBC loan originations segment through ReadyCap Commercial. ReadyCap Commercial is a specialty-finance nationwide originator focused on originating commercial real estate mortgage loans through its conventional, agency multi-family and transitional loan programs. The following table summarizes the loan features of ReadyCap Commercial’s three product types:


	Stabilized Conventional/Agency Commercial Real Estate Lending		Transitional, Value-Add and Event Driven Commercial Real Estate Lending
	Fixed Rate Product	Freddie Mac SBL Product	Transitional Product
Loan Purpose	Purchase, Cash-Out Refinance, Rate & Term Refinance, Transitional Lite	Purchase, Cash-Out Refinance, Rate & Term Refinance	Purchase, Cash-Out Refinance, Rate & Term Refinance, Bridge
Product Highlights	Stabilized Properties, Single-Tenants, Earn-Outs, Transitional-Lite	>= 90% Occupancy	Unstabilized Properties, Earn-outs, Rehab/Renovation, Construction, Lease Roll Issues, Vacancy Issues
Core Property Types	Multi-family, Mixed Use, Retail, Office, Industrial	Multi-family	Multi-family, Mixed Use, Retail, Office, Industrial
Loan Size	$1,000,000 - $35,000,000	$1,000,000 - $7,500,000	$3,500,000 - $45,000,000
Terms	2 - 10 Years	5 - 20 Years	< 5 Years
Amortization	20 - 30 Years	20 - 30 Years	Full Term Interest Only
Leverage	Up to 80% LTV	Up to 80% LTV	Up to 80% LTV
Take Out	Fixed Rate Term Securitization	GSE Wrap Securitization	CRE CLO Securitization
Origination Fees	Par	Par	Up to 1% & Up to 1% Exit Fee

(1) Bonds guaranteed by the GSEs.

Through December 31, 2019, we have originated more than $5.3 billion in SBC loans since Ready Capital’s inception. The following chart summarizes our annual SBC conventional loan originations since 2016:

As of December 31, 2019, our originated SBC loans held in our portfolio had a UPB of $2.3 billion and a carrying value of approximately $2.3 billion. Our originated SBC loans, substantially all of which are currently classified as

performing loans, represented approximately 53.5% of the UPB and 54.1% of the carrying value of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2019.

The following table summarizes our originated SBC loan securitization activities:


Deal Name	Asset Class	Issuance	Bonds Issued (in $ millions)		Weighted Average Debt Cost
RCMT 2014-1	SBC Originated Conventional	September 2014	$	181.7	3.2%
RCMT 2015-2	SBC Originated Conventional	November 2015		218.8	4.0%
FRESB 2016-SB11	Originated Agency Multi-family	January 2016		110.0	2.8%
FRESB 2016-SB18	Originated Agency Multi-family	July 2016		118.0	2.2%
RCMT 2016-3	SBC Originated Conventional	November 2016		162.1	3.4%
FRESB 2017-SB33	Originated Agency Multi-family	June 2017		197.9	2.6%
RCMF 2017-FL1	SBC Originated Transitional	August 2017		198.8	L + 139 bps
FRESB 2018-SB45	Originated Agency Multi-family	January 2018		362.0	2.8%
RCMT 2018-4	SBC Originated Conventional	March 2018		165.0	3.8%
RCMF 2018-FL2	SBC Originated Transitional	June 2018		217.1	L + 121 bps
FRESB 2018-SB52	Originated Agency Multi-family	September 2018		505.0	2.9%
RCMT 2019-5	SBC Originated Conventional	January 2019		355.8	4.1%
RCMF 2019-FL3	SBC Originated Transitional	April 2019		320.2	L + 133 bps
RCMT 2019-6	SBC Originated Conventional	November 2019		430.7	3.2%
Total			$	3,543.1	3.2%

Additionally, ReadyCap Commercial has been approved by Freddie Mac as one of 11 originators and servicers for multi-family loan products under the Freddie Mac program. As of December 31, 2019, ReadyCap Commercial employs 95 people focused on originating and supporting the SBC loan origination business.

We believe that we have significant opportunity to originate SBC loans at attractive risk-adjusted returns. We believe that many banks have restrictive credit guidelines for our target assets. In addition, large banks are not focused on the SBC market and smaller banks only lend in specific geographies. We see an opportunity to earn an attractive risk spread premium by lending to borrowers that do not fit the credit guidelines of many banks. We believe that increased demand, coupled with the fragmentation of the SBC lending market, provides us with attractive opportunities to originate loans to borrowers with strong credit profiles and real estate collateral that supports ultimate repayment of the loans.

We expect to continue to source SBC loan originations through the following loan origination channels:

Direct and indirect lending relationships. We will generate loan origination leads directly through our extensive relationships with commercial real estate brokers, bank loan officers and mortgage brokers that refer leads to our loan officers. To a lesser extent, we will also source loan leads through commercial real estate realtors, trusted advisors such as financial planners, lawyers, and certified public accountants (“CPAs”) and through direct-to-the-borrower transactions.

Other direct origination sources for SBC loans. From time to time, we may enter into strategic alliances and other referral programs with servicers, sub-servicers, strategic partners and vendors targeted at the refinancing of SBC loans.

SBA Origination, Acquisition and Servicing Platform

We operate our SBA loan origination, acquisition, and servicing segment through ReadyCap Lending. We acquire, originate and service owner-occupied loans guaranteed by the SBA under the SBA Section 7(a) Program through ReadyCap Lending’s license, one of only 14 licensed non-bank SBLCs. We believe investor demand for pass-through securities backed by the guaranteed portions of SBA Section 7(a) Program loans has been strong because the principal and interest payments are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. For this reason, we believe that SBA participating lenders that have sold the guaranteed portions of SBA Section 7(a) Program loans in recent years have been able to recognize attractive gains.

The SBA was created out of the Small Business Act in 1953. The SBA’s function is to protect the interests of small businesses. The SBA classifies a small business as a business that is organized for profit and is independently owned and operating primarily within the United States with less than $15 million in tangible net worth and not more than $5 million in average after-tax net income. The SBA supports small businesses by administering several programs that provide loan guarantees against default on qualified loans made to eligible small businesses.

The SBA Section 7(a) Program is the SBA’s primary program for providing financing for start-up and existing small businesses. The SBA typically guarantees 75% of qualified loans over $150,000. While the eligibility requirements of the SBA Section 7(a) Program vary depending on the industry of the borrower and other factors, the general eligibility requirements include the following: (i) gross sales of the borrower cannot exceed size standards set by the SBA (e.g., $30.0 million for limited service hospitality properties) or, alternatively, average net income cannot exceed $5.0 million for the most recent two fiscal years, (ii) liquid assets of the borrower and affiliates cannot exceed specified limits, (iii) tangible net worth of the borrower must be less than $15.0 million, (iv) the borrower must be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident and (v) the maximum aggregate SBA loan guarantees to a borrower cannot exceed $3.75 million. The table below provides information on the SBA Section 7(a) Program’s key features, including its eligible uses, maximum loan amount, loan maturity, interest rate, guarantee fee, yearly fee and personal guarantee.

Key Feature		Program Summary
Use of Proceeds		Fixed assets, working capital, financing of start-up or to purchase an existing business. Some debt payment allowed but lender’s loan exposure may not be reduced with the proceeds.
Maximum Loan Amount		$5,000,000
Maturity		Five to seven years for working capital and up to 25 years for equipment and real estate. All other loan purposes have a maximum term of ten years.
Interest Rate		Negotiated between applicant and lender and is subject to maximums. The current maximums are Prime Rate plus 2.25% for maturities fewer than seven years and Prime Rate plus 2.75% for maturities of seven years or longer. Spreads on loans with an initial UPB below $50,000 have higher maximums.
Guaranty Fee		Based on the loan’s maturity and the dollar amount guaranteed. The lender initially pays the guaranty fee and has the option to pass the expense on to the borrower at closing. A fee of 0.25% of the guaranteed portion of the loan is charged for loans with maturities of 12 months or less. For loans with maturities over 12 months, the fees are 2% for loans of $150,000 or less; 3% for loans of $150,001 to $700,000; 3.5% for loans over $700,000; and 3.75% for guaranteed portion over $1 million.
Yearly Fee		The ongoing yearly fee due from lenders to SBA is 0.52% of the guaranteed portion of the outstanding balance on the 7(a) loan.
Personal Guarantee		Required from all owners of 20% or more of the equity of the business. Lenders can require personal guarantees of owners with less than 20% ownership.

Sources: SBA, Business Development Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Congressional Research Service

Our return on equity related to the SBA 7(a) program is generated through retained yield on the unguaranteed principal balance as well as sale premium and retained servicing on the guaranteed principal balance as displayed by the following:

The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2019 related to our acquired SBA 7(a) loan portfolio (in thousands):


Contractual Status (1)	UPB		% of Total		Carrying Value (2)		% of Total
Current	$	721,201	96.7	%	$	695,810	97.7	%
30 - 59 days delinquent		7,064	0.9			6,134	0.9
60 - 89 days delinquent		4,499	0.6			3,752	0.5
90 - 179 days delinquent		1,735	0.2			830	0.1
180 + days delinquent		8,236	1.1			3,407	0.5
Bankruptcy / Foreclosure		3,466	0.5			2,093	0.3
Total	$	746,201	100.0	%	$	712,026	100.0	%
(1) Includes loan assets of consolidated VIEs. (2) Excludes specific and general allowance for loan losses.

We have originated more than $589.8 million in SBA loans since our program’s inception in mid-2015 through December 31, 2019. As of December 31, 2019, our originated SBA loans held in our loan portfolio had a UPB of $409.8 million and a carrying value of approximately $405.9 million.

The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2019 related to our sale of originated SBA loans (in thousands):


Quarter	Proceeds Received for Sale of Guaranteed Portion of Loans		UPB Sold		Net Proceeds		Weighted Average Sales Premium
Q1 2017	$	10,638	$	9,595	$	1,044	10.9	%
Q2 2017		23,570		21,125		2,445	11.6
Q3 2017		32,855		29,354		3,501	11.9
Q4 2017		28,189		25,260		2,929	11.6
Q1 2018		33,647		30,158		3,487	11.6
Q2 2018		55,574		50,064		5,510	11.0
Q3 2018		35,086		31,995		3,091	9.7
Q4 2018		54,996		50,426		4,570	9.1
Q1 2019		43,582		39,759		3,823	9.6
Q2 2019		45,493		41,036		4,457	10.9
Q3 2019		29,302		26,409		2,893	11.0
Q4 2019		52,859		48,146		4,713	9.8
Three year total	$	445,791	$	403,327	$	42,463	10.5	%

We use the securitization markets to access term financing on the unguaranteed retained portion of the SBA 7(a) Program loans. The following table summarizes our SBA loan securitization activities:


Deal Name	Asset Class	Issuance	Bonds Issued (in $ millions)		Weighted Average Debt Cost
RCLT 2015-1	SBA 7(a) Loans	June 2015	$	189.5	2.5%
RCLT 2019-2	SBA 7(a) Loans	December 2019		131.0	4.3%

Residential Mortgage Origination Platform

GMFS currently originates loans that are eligible to be purchased, guaranteed or insured by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA and USDA through retail, correspondent and broker channels. GMFS is licensed in 18 states and provides a wide range of residential mortgage services, including home purchase financing, mortgage refinancing, reverse mortgages, new construction loans and condo financing. GMFS operates through 13 retail branches located in Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. GMFS employs both a servicing retained and servicing released execution strategy, while retaining approximately 85-90% of current production. Our residential mortgage loan portfolio represented approximately 3.3% of the carrying value and 3.2% of the UPB of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2019. Our residential mortgage origination platform employed a total of 244 people as of December 31, 2019.

GMFS provides a residential origination platform to our sourcing capabilities, allowing access to new credit investment opportunities while controlling the origination process. We believe we can enhance and grow the GMFS origination platform through better access to capital and an expanded product offering. In addition, using this platform we intend to

Our management team has extensive experience and an established track record of operating through multiple market cycles. We primarily originate, sell and service conventional, conforming agency and government insured residential mortgage loans originated or acquired through our three channels: retail, correspondent and wholesale. Our mortgage lending operation generates origination and processing fees, net of origination costs, at the time of origination as well as gains or unexpected losses when the loans are sold to third party investors, including the GSEs and Ginnie Mae. We retain servicing rights from the mortgage originations and earn servicing fees, net of sub-servicer costs, from our mortgage servicing portfolio.

We believe that we have a significant opportunity to expand our footprint within the mortgage banking industry through:

Enhancement of our technology systems to drive further efficiency and customer satisfaction.

Increased penetration of existing clients and through the addition of new branches and independent originators in our correspondent and wholesale channels.

Opportunistic geographic expansion in our retail channel.

Our Loan Pipeline

We have a large and active pipeline of potential acquisition and origination opportunities that are in various stages of our investment process. We refer to assets as being part of our acquisition pipeline or our origination pipeline if:

an asset or portfolio opportunity has been presented to us and we have determined, after a preliminary analysis, that the assets fit within our investment strategy and exhibit the appropriate risk/reward characteristics and

in the case of acquired loans, we have executed a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) or an exclusivity agreement and commenced the due diligence process or we have executed more definitive documentation, such as a letter of intent (“LOI”), and in the case of originated loans, we have issued an LOI, and the borrower has paid a deposit.

As of December 31, 2019, our Manager has identified approximately $1.7 billion in potential assets as measured by the fully committed amounts of the loans, comprised of:


(in millions)		Current Pipeline(1)
SBC loan originations	$	820.7
SBC loan acquisitions		116.1
SBA loan originations		177.7
Residential agency loan originations		566.8
Total loan pipeline	$	1,681.3
(1) Includes 2020 fundings.

We operate in a competitive market for investment opportunities and competition may limit our ability to originate or acquire the potential investments in the pipeline. The consummation of any of the potential loans in the pipeline depends upon, among other things, one or more of the following: available capital and liquidity, our Manager’s allocation policy, satisfactory completion of our due diligence investigation and investment process, approval of our Manager’s Investment Committee, market conditions, our agreement with the seller on the terms and structure of such potential loan, and the execution and delivery of satisfactory transaction documentation. Historically, we have acquired less than a majority of the assets in our Manager’s pipeline at any one time and there can be no assurance the assets currently in its pipeline will be acquired or originated by our Manager in the future.

FINANCING STRATEGY

We use prudent leverage to increase potential returns to our stockholders. We finance the loans we originate primarily through securitization transactions, as well through other borrowings.

Our Manager’s extensive experience in securitization strategies across asset classes has enabled us to complete several securitizations of SBC loan and SBA 7(a) loan assets since January 2011. SBC securitization structures are non-recourse and typically provide debt equal to 50% to 90% of the cost basis of the SBC assets. Non-performing SBC ABS involve liquidating trusts with liquidation proceeds used to repay senior debt. Performing SBC ABS involve longer-duration trusts with principal and interest collections allocated to senior debt and losses on liquidated loans to equity and subordinate tranches. Our strategy is to continue to finance our assets through the securitization market, which will allow us to continue to match fund the SBC loans pledged as collateral to secure these securitizations on a long-term non-recourse basis.

We anticipate using other borrowings as part of our financing strategy, including re-securitizations, repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities, bank credit facilities (including term loans and revolving facilities), and equity and debt issuances.

As of December 31, 2019, our committed and outstanding financing arrangements included:


			December 31, 2019
(in thousands)	Commitment		Carrying Value		Available		Maturity Dates
Secured borrowings (warehouse credit facilities and borrowings under repurchase agreements)	$	2,548,048	$	1,189,392	$	1,358,656	2020 - 2023
Senior secured notes, net		179,289		179,289		-	2022
Corporate bonds, net		149,986		149,986		-	2021 - 2026
Convertible bonds, net		111,040		111,040		-	2023
Total recourse debt	$	2,988,363	$	1,629,707	$	1,358,656	2020 - 2026
Securitized debt obligations, net	$	1,815,154	$	1,815,154	$	-	2020 - 2026	(a)
Total non-recourse debt	$	1,815,154	$	1,815,154	$	-	2020 - 2026

(a) Represents estimated pay off of debt based on prepayment speeds of underlying collateral.

Our financing agreements require the company to maintain a debt-to-equity leverage ratio at certain levels. The amount of leverage we may employ for particular assets will depend upon the availability of particular types of financing and our Manager's assessment of the credit, liquidity, price volatility and other risks of those assets and financing counterparties. We currently target a total debt-to-equity leverage ratio between 4:1 to 5:1 and a recourse debt-to-equity leverage ratio between 1.5:1 to 2.5:1. We believe that these target leverage ratios are conservative for these asset classes and exemplify the conservative levels of borrowings we intend to use over time. We intend to use leverage for the primary purpose of financing our portfolio and not for the purpose of speculating on changes in interest rates. We may, however, be limited or restricted in the amount of leverage we may employ by the terms and provisions of any financing or other agreements that we may enter into in the future, and we may be subject to margin calls as a result of its financing activity. At December 31, 2019, we had a leverage ratio of 1.9x on a recourse debt-to-equity ratio.

HEDGING STRATEGY

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we may use derivative financial instruments (or hedging instruments), including interest rate swap agreements, interest rate cap agreements, options on interest rate swaps, or swaptions, financial futures, structured credit indices, and options in an effort to hedge the interest rate and credit spread risk associated with the financing of our portfolio. Specifically, we attempt to hedge our exposure to potential interest rate mismatches between the interest we earn on our assets and our borrowing costs caused by fluctuations in short-term interest rates, and we intend to hedge our SBC loan originations from the date the interest rate is locked until the loan is included in a securitization. The Company also uses derivative instruments to limit its exposure to changes in currency rates in respect of certain investments denominated in foreign currencies.

We also use hedging instruments in connection with our residential mortgage loan origination platform in an attempt to offset some of the impact of prepayments on our loans. In particular, we use MBS forward sales contracts to manage the interest rate price risk associated with the interest rate lock commitments we make with potential borrowers. In utilizing leverage and interest rate hedges, our objectives include, where desirable, locking in, on a long-term basis, a spread between the yield on our assets and the cost of our financing in an effort to improve returns to our stockholders. We will undertake to hedge our originated loan inventory pending securitization with respect to changes in securitization liability

cost resulting from both changes in benchmark treasuries and credit spreads. Hedges are periodically re-balanced to match expected duration of the securitization and are closed at securitization issuance with the resulting gain or loss allocated to the retained basis in the securitization with the objective of protecting the yield for the aforementioned changes in securitization liabilities.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

We strive to maintain an ethical workplace in which the highest standards of professional conduct are practiced.

Our board of directors is composed of a majority of independent directors. The Audit, Nominating and Corporate Governance and Compensation Committees of our board of directors are composed exclusively of independent directors.

In order to foster the highest standards of ethics and conduct in all business relationships, we have adopted a Code of Conduct and Ethics policy, which covers a wide range of business practices and procedures, that applies to our officers, directors, employees, if any, and independent contractors, to our Manager and our Manager’s officers and employees, and to any of our affiliates or affiliates of our Manager, and such affiliates’ officers and employees, who provide services to us or our Manager in respect of our Company. In addition, we have implemented Whistleblowing Procedures for Accounting and Auditing Matters and Code of Conduct and Ethics Violations (the “Whistleblower Policy”) that set forth procedures by which any Covered Persons (as defined in the Whistleblower Policy) may raise, on a confidential basis, concerns regarding, among other things, any questionable or unethical accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters and any potential violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethics with our Audit Committee or the Chief Compliance Officer.

We have adopted an Insider Trading Policy for Trading in the Securities of our Company (the “Insider Trading Policy”), that governs the purchase or sale of our securities by any of our directors, officers, and associates (as defined in the Insider Trading Policy), if any, and independent contractors, as well as officers and employees of our Manager and our officers, employees and affiliates, and that prohibits any such persons from buying or selling our securities on the basis of material non-public information.

COMPETITION

We compete with numerous regional and community banks, specialty-finance companies, savings and loan associations and other entities, and we expect that others may be organized in the future. The effect of the existence of additional REITs and other institutions may be increased competition for the available supply of SBC and SBA assets suitable for purchase, which may cause the price for such assets to rise. Additionally, origination of SBC loans, SBA loans and residential agency loans by our competitors may increase the availability of these loans, which may result in a reduction of interest rates on these loans.

In the face of this competition, we expect to have access to our Manager’s professionals and their industry expertise, which may provide us with a competitive advantage in sourcing transactions and help it assess acquisition and origination risks and determine appropriate pricing for potential assets. Additionally, we believe that we are currently one of only a handful of active market participants in the secondary SBC loan market. Due to the special servicing expertise needed to effectively manage these assets, the small size of each loan, the uniqueness of the real properties that collateralize the loans and the need to bring residential mortgage credit analysis into the underwriting process, we expect a competitive demand for these assets to remain constrained. We seek to manage credit risk through our loan-level pre-origination or pre-acquisition due diligence and underwriting processes, which as of December 31, 2019 has limited the amount of realized losses. However, we may not be able to achieve our business goals or expectations due to the competitive risks that we face. For additional information concerning these competitive risks, see “Item 1A - Risk Factors – Risks Related to Our Business – New entrants in the market” for SBC loan acquisitions and originations could adversely impact our ability to acquire SBC loans at attractive prices and originate SBC loans at attractive risk-adjusted returns.

EMPLOYEES; STAFFING

We are managed by Waterfall pursuant to the management agreement with Waterfall. Our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer are dedicated exclusively to us, along with several of Waterfall’s accounting professionals, a marketing professional, and an information technology professional whom are also dedicated primarily to us. We or

Waterfall may in the future hire additional personnel that may be dedicated to our business. However, other than our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, Waterfall is not obligated under the management agreement to dedicate any of its personnel exclusively to our business, nor is it or its personnel obligated to dedicate any specific portion of its or their time to our business. Accordingly, with the exception of our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, our executive officers are not required to devote any specific amount of time to our business. We are responsible for the costs of our own employees. However, with the exception of our ReadyCap Commercial, ReadyCap Lending, Knight Capital, and GMFS subsidiaries, which will employ their own personnel, we do not expect to have our own employees.

Our corporate headquarters are located at 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 50th Floor, New York, NY 10020, and our telephone number is (212) 257-4600.

INFORMATION ABOUT OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following sets forth certain information with respect to our executive officers.


Name	Age	Position with the Company
Thomas E. Capasse	62	Chairman of the Company Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
Jack J. Ross	62	President and Director
Tom Buttacavoli	42	Chief Investment Officer
Andrew Ahlborn	36	Chief Financial Officer
Gary Taylor	60	Chief Operating Officer

Set forth below is biographical information for our executive officers and other key personnel.

Thomas E. Capasse is a Manager and co-founder of our Manager. Mr. Capasse also serves as Chairman of our board of directors and our Chief Executive Officer. Prior to founding Waterfall, Mr. Capasse managed the principal finance groups at Greenwich Capital from 1995 until 1997, Nomura Securities from 1997 until 2001, and Macquarie Securities from 2001 until 2004. Mr. Capasse has significant and long-standing experience in the securitization market as a founding member of Merrill Lynch’s ABS Group (1983 – 1994) with a focus on MBS transactions (including the initial Subprime Mortgage and Manufactured Housing ABS) and experience in many other ABS sectors. Mr. Capasse began his career as a fixed income analyst at Dean Witter and Bank of Boston. Mr. Capasse received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Bowdoin College in 1979.

Jack J. Ross is a Manager and co-founder of our Manager. Mr. Ross also serves as our President and as a member of our board of directors. Prior to founding Waterfall in January 2005, Mr. Ross was the founder of Licent Capital, a specialty broker/dealer for intellectual property securitization. From 1987 until 1999, Mr. Ross was employed by Merrill Lynch where he managed the real estate finance and ABS groups. Mr. Ross began his career at Drexel Burnham Lambert where he worked on several of the early ABS transactions and at Laventhol & Horwath where he served as a senior auditor. Mr. Ross received a Master of Business Administration degree in Finance with distinction from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business in 1984 and a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting, cum laude, from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1978.

Thomas Buttacavoli is a Manager, Managing Director and co-founder of our Manager. Mr. Buttacavoli serves as our Chief Investment Officer and Portfolio Manager of our SBC loan portfolio. Prior to joining Waterfall in 2005, Mr. Buttacavoli was a Structured Finance Analyst specializing in intellectual property securitization at Licent Capital. Prior to joining Licent Capital, he was a Strategic Planning Analyst at BNY Capital Markets. Mr. Buttacavoli started his career as a Financial Analyst within Merrill Lynch’s Partnership Finance Group. Mr. Buttacavoli received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Finance and Accounting from New York University’s Stern School of Business in 1999.

Andrew Ahlborn serves as our Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Ahlborn joined our Manager in 2010 and has been the Controller of Ready Capital since 2015. Prior to joining our Manager he worked in Ernst & Young, LLP's Financial Services Office. Mr. Ahlborn received a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from Fordham University's Gabelli School of Business and is currently pursuing a Master of Business Administration through Columbia Business School. He is a licensed Certified Public Accountant in New York.

Gary T. Taylor serves as our Chief Operating Officer. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Taylor served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Newtek Business Credit from May 2015 to March 2019. From 2013 to 2015, Mr. Taylor was Managing Director at Brevet Capital Management, and before that he was Chief Operating Officer of CIT Small Business Lending from 2007 to 2013. Earlier in his career, Mr. Taylor held numerous roles within the financial services industry including Lehman Brothers, Moody's Investor Service, AT&T Capital Corporation, Resolution Trust Corporation, First Chicago Bank & Trust, and Chase Manhattan Bank. Mr. Taylor received a Bachelor of Science degree, with Honors, in Business from Florida A&M University.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

We maintain a website at www.readycapital.com and will make available, free of charge, on our website (a) our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K (including any amendments thereto), proxy statements and other information (collectively, “Company Documents”) filed with, or furnished to, the SEC, as soon as reasonably practicable after such documents are so filed or furnished, (b) Corporate Governance Guidelines, (c) Director Independence Standards, (d) Code of Conduct and Ethics and (e) written charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the board of directors. Company Documents filed with, or furnished to, the SEC are also available for review and copying by the public at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We provide copies of our Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code of Conduct and Ethics, free of charge, to stockholders who request such documents. Requests should be directed to Jacques Cornet, ICR, Inc., at 685 Third Avenue, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10017.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Our business and operations are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, the occurrence of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, consolidated results of operations and ability to make distributions to stockholders and could cause the value of our capital stock to decline. Please refer to the section entitled “Forward-Looking Statements.”

Risks Related to Our Business

Difficult conditions in the mortgage, residential and commercial real estate markets, or in the financial markets and the economy generally, including recent market volatility and the outbreak of a novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”), may cause us to experience market losses related to our holdings, and there is no assurance that these conditions will improve in the near future.

Our results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the mortgage market, the residential and commercial real estate markets, the financial markets and the economy generally. Difficult market conditions, as well as inflation, energy costs, geopolitical issues, health epidemics and outbreaks of contagious diseases, such as the recent outbreak of COVID-19, unemployment and the availability and cost of credit, can contribute to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy and markets. Since the onset of the global financial crisis, the U.S. mortgage market has been severely affected by changes in the lending landscape and has experienced defaults, credit losses and significant liquidity concerns, and there is no assurance that these conditions have fully stabilized or that existing conditions will not worsen. This is especially true in the SBC loan sector. Disruptions in mortgage markets negatively impact new demand for real estate. Further, disruptions in the broader financial markets, including due to the occurrence of unforeseen or catastrophic events such as the outbreak of COVID-19 or other widespread health emergencies or terrorist attacks, could adversely affect our business and operations. Any such disruption could adversely impact our ability to raise capital, cause increases in borrower defaults and decreases in the value of our assets, cause continued interest rate volatility and movements that could make obtaining financing or refinancing our debt obligations more challenging or more expensive, and could lead to operational difficulties that could impair our ability to manage our business. A deterioration of the SBC or SBC ABS markets or the broader financial markets may cause us to experience losses related to our assets and to sell assets at a loss. Our profitability may be materially adversely affected if we are unable to obtain cost effective financing. A continuation or increase in the volatility and deterioration in the SBC and SBC ABS markets as well as the broader financial markets may adversely affect the performance and fair market values of our SBC loan and SBC ABS assets and may adversely affect our results of operations and credit availability, which may reduce earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We anticipate that a significant portion of our investments will be in the form of SBC loans that are subject to increased risks.

Our acquired non-performing loans represented in the aggregate 3.2% of the UPB and 2.4% of the carrying value of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2019. As of December 31, 2019, our non-performing acquired loan portfolio had a current unpaid principal balance of $46.6 million and a carrying value of $33.1 million. We consider a loan to be performing if the borrower is current on 100% of the contractual payments due for principal and interest during the most recent 90 days. We consider a loan to be non-performing if the borrower does not meet the criteria of a performing loan. Non-performing SBC loans are subject to increased risks of credit loss for a variety of reasons, including, the underlying property is too highly-leveraged or the borrower has experienced financial distress. Whatever the reason, the borrower may be unable to meet its contractual debt service obligation to us or our subsidiaries. Non-performing SBC loans may require a substantial amount of workout negotiations and/or restructuring, which may divert our attention from other activities and entail, among other things, a substantial reduction in the interest rate or capitalization of past due interest. However, even if restructurings are successfully accomplished, risks still exist that borrowers will not be able or willing to maintain the restructured payments or refinance the restructured mortgage upon maturity. Additional risks inherent in the acquisition of non-performing SBC loans include undisclosed claims, undisclosed tax liens that may have priority, higher legal costs and greater difficulties in determining the value of the underlying property.

As of December 31, 2019 the average loan-to-value (“LTV”) of ReadyCap Commercial’s originated portfolio was 61%. The weighted average LTV of our acquired loans was 43% as of December 31, 2019. If such SBC loans with higher LTV ratios become delinquent, we may experience greater credit losses compared to lower-leveraged properties. Additional risks inherent in the acquisition of delinquent SBC loans include undisclosed claims, undisclosed tax liens that may have priority, higher legal costs and greater difficulties in determining the value of the underlying property.

The lack of liquidity of our assets may adversely affect our business, including our ability to value and sell our assets.

A portion of the SBC loans and ABS assets we own, acquire or originate may be subject to legal and other restrictions on resale or will otherwise be less liquid than publicly-traded securities. In addition, our real estate investments, including the properties we acquired through our acquisition of ORM and any properties acquired by us through foreclosure, are relatively illiquid and difficult to buy and sell quickly. The illiquidity of our assets may make it difficult for us to sell such assets if the need or desire arises. In addition, if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less value than the value at which we have previously recorded our assets. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be relatively limited, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Waterfall’s due diligence of potential SBC loans and ABS assets may not reveal all of the liabilities associated with and other combined weaknesses in such SBC loans and ABS assets, which could lead to investment losses.

Before making an investment, Waterfall calculates the level of risk associated with the SBC loan to be acquired or originated based on several factors which include the following: a complete review of seller’s data files, including data integrity, compliance review and custodial file review; rent rolls and other property operating data; personal credit reports of the borrower and owner and/or operator; property valuation review; environmental review; and tax and title search. In making the assessment and otherwise conducting customary due diligence, we will employ standard documentation requirements and require appraisals prepared by local independent third-party appraisers it selects. Additionally, we will seek to have sellers provide representations and warranties on SBC loans we acquire, and if we are unable to obtain representations and warranties, we will factor the increased risk into the price we pay for such loans. Despite our review process, there can be no assurance that our due diligence process will uncover all relevant facts or that any investment will be successful.

Inaccurate and/or incomplete information received in connection with our due diligence and underwriting process could have a negative impact on our financial condition and results of operation.

Our credit and underwriting philosophy for both acquired and originated SBC loans encompass individual borrower and property diligence, taking into consideration several factors, including (i) the seller’s data files, including data integrity, compliance review and custodial file review; (ii) rent rolls and other property operating data; (iii) personal credit reports of the borrower, owner and/or operator; (iv) property valuations; (v) environmental reviews; and (vi) tax and title searches.

We also generally ask sellers to provide representations and warranties on SBC loans we acquire, and if we are unable to obtain representations and warranties, we will factor the increased risk into the price we pay for such loans. Our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted to the extent we rely on information that is misleading, inaccurate or incomplete.

The use of underwriting guideline exceptions in the SBC loan origination process may result in increased delinquencies and defaults.

Although SBC loan originators generally underwrite mortgage loans in accordance with their pre-determined loan underwriting guidelines, from time to time and in the ordinary course of business, originators, including the Company, will make exceptions to these guidelines. On a case-by-case basis, our underwriters may determine that a prospective borrower that does not strictly qualify under our underwriting guidelines warrants an underwriting exception, based upon compensating factors. Compensating factors may include, without limitations, a lower LTV ratio, a higher debt coverage ratio, experience as a real estate owner or investor, borrower net worth or liquidity, stable employment, longer length of time in business and length of time owning the property. Loans originated with exceptions may result in a higher number of delinquencies and defaults, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Deficiencies in appraisal quality in the mortgage loan origination and acquisition process may result in increased principal loss severity.

During the mortgage loan underwriting process, appraisals are generally obtained on the collateral underlying each prospective mortgage. The quality of these appraisals may vary widely in accuracy and consistency. The appraiser may feel pressure from the broker or lender to provide an appraisal in the amount necessary to enable the originator to make the loan, whether or not the value of the property justifies such an appraised value. Inaccurate or inflated appraisals may result in an increase in the severity of losses on the mortgage loans, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Recent market conditions may make it more difficult for us to analyze potential investment opportunities for our portfolio of assets.

Our success will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively analyze potential acquisition and origination opportunities in order to assess the level of risk-adjusted returns that we should expect from any particular investment. To estimate the value of a particular asset, we may use historical assumptions that may or may not be appropriate during the recent unprecedented downturn in the real estate market and general economy. To the extent that we use historical assumptions that are inappropriate under current market conditions, we may overpay for an asset or acquire an asset that it otherwise might not acquire, which could have a material and adverse effect on our results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

In addition, as part of our overall portfolio risk management, we will analyze interest rate changes and prepayment trends separately and collectively to assess their effects on our portfolio of assets. In conducting our analysis, we will depend on certain assumptions based upon historical trends with respect to the relationship between interest rates and prepayments under normal market conditions. Recent dislocations in the mortgage market or other developments may change the way that prepayment trends respond to interest rate changes, which may adversely affect our ability to assess the market value of our portfolio of assets, implement our hedging strategies or implement techniques to reduce our prepayment rate volatility. If our estimates prove to be incorrect or our hedges do not adequately mitigate the impact of changes in interest rates or prepayments, we may incur losses that could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Any costs or delays involved in the completion of a foreclosure or liquidation of the underlying property may further reduce proceeds from the property and may increase the loss.

In the future, it is possible that we may find it necessary or desirable to foreclose on some, if not many, of the SBC loans we acquire, and the foreclosure process may be lengthy and expensive. Borrowers may resist mortgage foreclosure actions by asserting numerous claims, counterclaims and defenses against us including, without limitation, numerous lender liability claims and defenses, even when such assertions may have no basis in fact, in an effort to prolong the foreclosure action and force us into a modification of the SBC loan or a favorable buy-out of the borrower’s position. In

some states, foreclosure actions can sometimes take several years or more to litigate. At any time prior to or during the foreclosure proceedings, the borrower may file for bankruptcy, which would have the effect of staying the foreclosure actions and further delaying the foreclosure process. Foreclosure may create a negative public perception of the related mortgaged property, resulting in a decrease in its value. Even if we are successful in foreclosing on a SBC loan, the liquidation proceeds upon sale of the underlying real estate may not be sufficient to recover our cost basis in the SBC loan, resulting in a loss to us. Furthermore, any costs or delays involved in the completion of a foreclosure of the SBC loan or a liquidation of the underlying property will further reduce the proceeds and thus increase the loss. Any such reductions could materially and adversely affect the value of the commercial SBC loans in which we invests and, therefore, could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Real estate properties acquired through our acquisition of ORM or through foreclosure subject us to additional risks associated with owning real estate.

We have acquired real estate properties through our acquisition of ORM. These assets expose us to additional risks, including, without limitation:

facing difficulties in integrating these properties with our existing business operations;

incurring costs to carry, and in some cases make repairs or improvements to these assets, which requires additional liquidity and results in additional expenses that could exceed our original estimates and impact our operating results;

not being able to realize sufficient amounts from sales of the properties to avoid losses;

not being able to sell properties, which are not liquid assets, in a timely manner, or at all, when we need to increase liquidity through asset sales;

properties being acquired with one or more co-owners (called tenants-in-common) where development or sale requires written agreement or consent by all; without timely agreement or consent, we could suffer a loss from being unable to develop or sell the property;

maintaining occupancy of the properties;

controlling operating expenses;

coping with general and local market conditions;

complying with changes in laws and regulations pertaining to taxes, use, zoning and environmental protection;

possible liability for injury to persons and property;

possible uninsured losses related to environmental events such as earthquakes, floods and/or mudslides; and

possible liability for environmental remediation.

If any of our properties incurs a vacancy, it could be difficult to sell or re-lease.

One or more of our properties we acquired through our acquisition of ORM may incur a vacancy by either the continued default of a tenant under its lease or the expiration of one of our leases. Certain of our properties may be specifically suited to the particular needs of a tenant (e.g., a retail bank branch or distribution warehouse), and major renovations and expenditures may be required in order for us to re-lease vacant space for other uses. We may have difficulty obtaining a new tenant for any vacant space we have in our properties. If the vacancy continues for a long period of time, we may suffer reduced revenues, resulting in less cash available to be distributed to you. In addition, the resale value of a property could be diminished because the market value of a particular property will depend principally upon the value of the leases of such property.

Our properties may be subject to impairment charges.

We will periodically evaluate our real estate investments for impairment indicators. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based on factors such as market conditions, tenant performance and legal structure. For example, the early termination of, or default under, a lease by a tenant may lead to an impairment charge. If we determine that an impairment has occurred, we would be required to make an adjustment to the net carrying value of the property, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the impairment charge is recorded.

We would face potential adverse effects from tenant defaults, bankruptcies or insolvencies.

The bankruptcy of our tenants may adversely affect the income generated by our properties. If our tenant files for bankruptcy, we generally cannot evict the tenant solely because of such bankruptcy. In addition, a bankruptcy court could authorize a bankrupt tenant to reject and terminate its lease with us. In such a case, our claim against the tenant for unpaid and future rent would be subject to a statutory cap that might be substantially less than the remaining rent actually owed under the lease, and it is unlikely that a bankrupt tenant would pay in full amounts it owes us under the lease. Any shortfall resulting from the bankruptcy of one or more of our tenants could adversely affect our cash flow and results of operations.

Any mezzanine loan assets we may purchase or originate may involve greater risks of loss than senior loans secured by income-producing properties.

We may originate or acquire mezzanine loans, which take the form of subordinated loans secured by second mortgages on the underlying property or loans secured by a pledge of the ownership interests of either the entity owning the property or a pledge of the ownership interests of the entity that owns the interest in the entity owning the property. These types of assets involve a higher degree of risk than long-term senior mortgage lending secured by income producing real property, because the loan may become unsecured as a result of foreclosure by the senior lender. In the event of a bankruptcy of the entity providing the pledge of its ownership interests as security, we may not have full recourse to the assets of such entity, or the assets of the entity may not be sufficient to satisfy its mezzanine loan. If a borrower defaults on any mezzanine loan we may purchase or originate, or debt senior to any such loan, or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, such mezzanine loan will be satisfied only after the senior debt. As a result, we may not recover some or all of our initial expenditure. In addition, mezzanine loans may have higher LTVs than conventional mortgage loans, resulting in less equity in the property and increasing the risk of loss of principal. Significant losses related to any mezzanine loans we may purchase or originate would result in operating losses for us and may limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We may be exposed to environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title, which may in turn decrease the value of the underlying properties.

In the course of our business, we could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title. In such a circumstance, we may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or we may be required to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. If we ever become subject to significant environmental liabilities, our business, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, an owner or operator of real property may become liable under various federal, state and local laws, for the costs of removal of certain hazardous substances released on its property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release of such hazardous

substances. The presence of hazardous substances may adversely affect an owner’s ability to sell real estate or borrow using real estate as collateral. To the extent that an owner of an underlying property becomes liable for removal costs, the ability of the owner to make debt payments may be reduced, which in turn may adversely affect the value of the relevant mortgage-related assets held by us.

Investments outside the U.S. that are denominated in foreign currencies subject us to foreign currency risks and to the uncertainty of foreign laws and markets, which may adversely affect our distributions and our REIT status.

Our investments outside the U.S. denominated in foreign currencies subject us to foreign currency risk due to potential fluctuations in exchange rates between foreign currencies and the U.S. dollar. As a result, changes in exchange rates of any such foreign currency to U.S. dollars may affect our income and distributions and may also affect the book value of our assets and the amount of stockholders’ equity. In addition, these investments subject us to risks of multiple and conflicting tax laws and regulations, and other laws and regulations that may make foreclosure and the exercise of other remedies in the case of default more difficult or costly compared to U.S. assets, and political and economic instability abroad, any of which factors could adversely affect our receipt of returns on and distributions from these investments.

Changes in foreign currency exchange rates used to value a REIT’s foreign assets may be considered changes in the value of the REIT’s assets. These changes may adversely affect our status as a REIT. Further, bank accounts in foreign currency which are not considered cash or cash equivalents may adversely affect our status as a REIT.

Conditions in Europe and the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the exit of any other member state or the break-up of the European Union entirely, would create uncertainty and could affect our investments directly.

We currently hold, and may acquire additional, investments that are denominated in Pounds Sterling (“GBP”) and EURs (including loans secured by assets located in the United Kingdom or Europe), as well as equity interests in real estate properties located in Europe. European financial markets have experienced volatility and have been adversely affected by concerns about rising government debt levels, credit rating downgrades and possible default on or restructuring of government debt. These events have caused bond yield spreads (the cost of borrowing debt in the capital markets) and credit default spreads (the cost of purchasing credit protection) to increase, most notably in relation to certain Eurozone countries. The governments of several member countries of the European Union have experienced large public budget deficits, which have adversely affected the sovereign debt issued by those countries and may ultimately lead to declines in the value of the Euro.

On January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom officially withdrew from the European Union (such withdrawal commonly being referred to as “Brexit”). On October 17, 2019, previous to the official withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the European Union and the United Kingdom agreed to a negotiated withdrawal agreement (the “Withdrawal Agreement”). The Withdrawal Agreement provides for an implementation period ending on December 31, 2020 (which may be extended for up to two years) during which, except as otherwise provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement, European Union law will be applicable to, and in, the United Kingdom while the European Union and the United Kingdom negotiate their future relationship.

The Withdrawal Agreement was ratified by the United Kingdom Parliament in January 2020. There is, however, uncertainty as to the scope, nature and terms of any future relationship to be negotiated between the United Kingdom and the European Union after Brexit.

Any further deterioration in the global or Eurozone economy, or Brexit and the uncertainty associated with it, could have a material adverse effect on our business, the value of our properties and investments and our potential growth in Europe, and could amplify the currency risks faced by us.

Our loans are dependent on the ability of the commercial property owner to generate net income from operating the property, which may result in the inability of such property owner to repay a loan, as well as the risk of foreclosure.

Our loans are generally secured by multi-family, office, retail, mixed use, commercial or warehouse properties and are subject to risks of delinquency, foreclosure and loss that may be greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential property. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of such property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the

borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Net operating income of an income-producing property can be adversely affected by, among other things:

tenant mix;

success of tenant businesses;

property management decisions;

property location, condition and design;

competition from comparable types of properties;

changes in national, regional or local economic conditions and/or specific industry segments;

declines in regional or local real estate values;

declines in regional or local rental or occupancy rates;

increases in interest rates, real estate tax rates and other operating expenses;

costs of remediation and liabilities associated with environmental conditions;

the potential for uninsured or underinsured property losses;

changes in governmental laws and regulations, including fiscal policies, zoning ordinances and environmental legislation and the related costs of compliance; and

acts of God, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances.

In the event of any default under a mortgage loan held directly by us, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan, which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations and limit amounts available for distribution to our stockholders. In the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law.

Foreclosure can be an expensive and lengthy process, and foreclosing on certain properties where we directly hold the mortgage loan and the borrower’s default under the mortgage loan is continuing could result in actions that could be costly to our operations, in addition to having a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan.

Our portfolio of assets may at times be concentrated in certain property types or secured by properties concentrated in a limited number of geographic areas, which increases our exposure to economic downturn with respect to those property types or geographic locations.

We are not required to observe specific diversification criteria. Therefore, our portfolio of assets may, at times, be concentrated in certain property types that are subject to higher risk of foreclosure, or secured by properties concentrated in a limited number of geographic locations.

Our loan portfolio is concentrated in California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois and represents approximately 18.1%, 15.3%, 7.9%, 7.7%, and 5.6%, respectively, of our total loans as of December 31, 2019. Continued deterioration of economic conditions in these or in any other state in which we have a significant concentration of borrowers could have a material and adverse effect on our business by reducing demand for new financings, limiting the ability of customers to repay existing loans and impairing the value of our real estate collateral and real estate owned properties. For example, the

real estate market in South Florida has experienced a significant downturn which has an adverse impact on the collateral securing our loans in these areas.

To the extent that our portfolio is concentrated in any region, or by type of property, downturns relating generally to such region, type of borrower or security may result in defaults on a number of our assets within a short time period, which may reduce our net income and the value of our common stock and accordingly reduce our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Homeowner association super priority liens, special assessments and energy efficiency liens may take priority over the mortgage lien.

Homeowner association super priority liens may take priority over the mortgage lien. In some jurisdictions it is possible that the first lien of a mortgage may be extinguished by super priority liens of homeowners associations (“HOAs”), potentially resulting in a loss of the outstanding principal balance of the mortgage loan. In a number of states, HOA or condominium association assessment liens can take priority over first lien mortgages in certain circumstances. The number of these so called superlien jurisdictions has increased in the past few decades and may increase further. Rulings by the highest courts in Nevada and the District of Columbia have held that the superlien statute provides the HOA or condominium association with a true lien priority rather than a payment priority from the proceeds of the sale, creating the ability to extinguish the existing senior mortgage and greatly increasing the risk of losses on mortgage loans secured by homes whose owners fail to pay HOA or condominium fees. If an HOA, or a purchaser of an HOA superlien, completes a foreclosure in respect of an HOA superlien on a mortgaged property, the related mortgage loan may be extinguished. In those circumstances, a loan owner could suffer a loss of the entire principal balance of such mortgage loan. A servicer might be able to attempt to recover, on an unsecured basis, by suing the related mortgagor personally for the balance, but recovery in these circumstances will be problematic if the related mortgagor has no meaningful assets against which to recover. Special assessments and energy efficiency liens may take priority over the mortgage lien. Mortgaged properties securing mortgage loans may be subject to the lien of special property taxes and/or special assessments. These liens may be superior to the liens securing the mortgage loans, irrespective of the date of the mortgage. In some instances, individual mortgagors may be able to elect to enter into contracts with governmental agencies for property assessed clean energy or similar assessments that are intended to secure the payment of energy and water efficiency and distributed energy generation improvements that are permanently affixed to their properties, possibly without notice to or the consent of the mortgagee. These assessments may also have lien priority over the mortgages securing mortgage loans. No assurance can be given that a mortgaged property so assessed will increase in value to the extent of the assessment lien. Additional indebtedness secured by the assessment lien would reduce the amount of the value of a mortgaged property available to satisfy the affected mortgage loan. Such actions could have a dramatic impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition, and the cost of complying with any additional laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, the market price of our common stock and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

The increasing number of proposed United States federal, state and local laws may affect certain mortgage-related assets in which we intend to invest and could materially increase our cost of doing business.

Various bankruptcy legislation has been proposed that, among other provisions, could allow judges to modify the terms of residential mortgages in bankruptcy proceedings, could hinder the ability of the servicer to foreclose promptly on defaulted mortgage loans or permit limited assignee liability for certain violations in the mortgage loan origination process, any or all of which could adversely affect our business or result in us being held responsible for violations in the mortgage loan origination process even where we were not the originators of the loan. We do not know what impact this type of legislation, which has been primarily, if not entirely, focused on residential mortgage originations, would have on the SBC loan market. We are unable to predict whether United States federal, state or local authorities, or other pertinent bodies, will enact legislation, laws, rules, regulations, handbooks, guidelines or similar provisions that will affect our business or require changes in our practices in the future, and any such changes could materially and adversely affect our cost of doing business and profitability.

Failure to obtain or maintain required approvals and/or state licenses necessary to operate our mortgage-related activities may adversely impact our investment strategy.

We may be required to obtain and maintain various approvals and/or licenses from federal or state governmental authorities, government sponsored entities or similar bodies in connection with some or all of our activities. There is no

assurance that we can obtain and maintain any or all of the approvals and licenses that we desire or that we will avoid experiencing significant delays in seeking such approvals and licenses. Furthermore, we will be subject to various disclosure and other requirements to obtain and maintain these approvals and licenses, and there is no assurance that we will satisfy those requirements. Our failure to obtain or maintain licenses will restrict our options and ability to engage in desired activities, and could subject us to fines, suspensions, terminations and various other adverse actions if it is determined that we have engaged without the requisite approvals or licenses in activities that required an approval or license, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operation and financial condition.

Loans to small businesses involve a high degree of business and financial risk, which can result in substantial losses that would adversely affect our business, results of operation and financial condition.

Our operations and activities include loans to small, privately owned businesses to purchase real estate used in their operations or by investors seeking to acquire small multi-family, office, retail, mixed use or warehouse properties. Additionally, SBC loans are also often accompanied by personal guarantees. Often, there is little or no publicly available information about these businesses. Accordingly, we must rely on our own due diligence to obtain information in connection with our investment decisions. Our borrowers may not meet net income, cash flow and other coverage tests typically imposed by banks. A borrower’s ability to repay its loan may be adversely impacted by numerous factors, including a downturn in its industry or other negative local or more general economic conditions. Deterioration in a borrower’s financial condition and prospects may be accompanied by deterioration in the collateral for the loan. In addition, small businesses typically depend on the management talents and efforts of one person or a small group of people for their success. The loss of services of one or more of these persons could have a material and adverse impact on the operations of the small business. Small companies are typically more vulnerable to customer preferences, market conditions and economic downturns and often need additional capital to expand or compete. These factors may have an impact on loans involving such businesses. Loans to small businesses, therefore, involve a high degree of business and financial risk, which can result in substantial losses.

Some of the mortgage loans we will originate or acquire are loans made to self-employed borrowers who have a higher risk of delinquency and default, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Many of our borrowers will be self-employed. Self-employed borrowers may be more likely to default on their mortgage loans than salaried or commissioned borrowers and generally have less predictable income. In addition, many self-employed borrowers are small business owners who may be personally liable for their business debt. Consequently, a higher number of self-employed borrowers may result in increased defaults on the mortgage loans we originate or acquire and, therefore, could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Some of the mortgage loans we will originate or acquire are secured by non-owner/user properties that may experience increased frequency of default and, when in default, the owners are more likely to abandon their properties, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Some of the loans we will originate or acquire have been, and in the future could be, made to borrowers who do not live in or operate a business on the mortgaged properties. These mortgage loans are secured by properties acquired by investors for rental income and capital appreciation and tend to default more than properties regularly occupied or used by the related borrowers. In a default, real property investors not occupying the mortgaged property may be more likely to abandon the related mortgaged property, increasing defaults and, therefore, could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are a seller/servicer approved to sell mortgage loans to Freddie Mac and failure to maintain our status as an approved seller/servicer could harm our business.

We are an approved Freddie Mac seller/servicer. As an approved seller/servicer, we are required to conduct certain aspects of our operations in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines published by Freddie Mac and we are required to pledge a certain amount of cash to Freddie Mac to collateralize potential obligations to it. Freddie Mac performed an audit in June 2016. As a result of that audit, ReadyCap Commercial received an overall assessment of Satisfactory. Failure to maintain our status as an approved seller/servicer would mean we would not be able to sell mortgage loans to Freddie Mac, could result in us being required to re-purchase loans previously sold to Freddie Mac, or could otherwise restrict our business and investment options and could harm our business and expose us to losses or other

claims. Freddie Mac may, in the future, require us to hold additional capital or pledge additional cash or assets in order to maintain approved seller/servicer status, which, if required, would adversely impact our financial results. Loans sold to Freddie Mac that may be required to be re-purchased as of December 31, 2019 included 40 loans with a combined unpaid principal balance of $89.9 million.

Our acquisitions and the integration of acquired businesses subject us to various risks and may not result in all of the cost savings and benefits anticipated, which could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

We have in the past, and may in the future, seek to grow our business by acquiring other businesses that we believe will complement or augment our existing businesses. In March 2019, we completed our acquisition of ORM and in October 2019, we completed our acquisition of Knight Capital. We cannot predict with certainty the benefits of these acquisitions, which often constitute multi-year endeavors. There is risk that our acquisitions may not have the anticipated positive results, including results relating to: correctly assessing the asset quality of the assets being acquired; the total cost and time required to complete the integration successfully; being able to profitably deploy funds acquired in an acquisition; or the overall performance of the combined entity.

If we are unable to successfully integrate our acquisitions into our business, we may never realize their expected benefits. With each acquisition, we may discover or experience unexpected costs, liabilities for which we are not indemnified, delays, lower than expected cost savings or synergies, or incurrence of other significant charges such as impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets and asset devaluation. In addition, we may be unable to successfully integrate the diverse company cultures, retain key personnel, apply our expertise to new competencies, or react to adverse changes in industry conditions.

Acquisitions may also result in business disruptions that could cause customers to move their business to our competitors. It is possible that the integration process related to acquisitions could result in the disruption of our ongoing businesses or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies that could adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with clients, customers, and employees. The loss of key employees in connection with an acquisition could adversely affect our ability to successfully conduct our business. Acquisition and integration efforts could divert management attention and resources, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, the operation of the acquired businesses may adversely affect our existing profitability, and we may not be able to achieve results in the future similar to those achieved by our existing business or manage growth resulting from the acquisition effectively.

If Waterfall underestimates the credit analysis and the expected risk-adjusted return relative to other comparable investment opportunities, we may experience losses.

Waterfall values our SBC loan and SBC ABS investments based on an initial credit analysis and the investment’s expected risk-adjusted return relative to other comparable investment opportunities available to us, taking into account estimated future losses on the mortgage loans, and the estimated impact of these losses on expected future cash flows. Waterfall’s loss estimates may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates. In the event that Waterfall underestimates the losses relative to the price we pay for a particular SBC or SBC ABS investment, we may experience losses with respect to such investment.

Waterfall utilizes analytical models and data in connection with the valuation of our SBC loans and SBC ABS assets, and any incorrect, misleading or incomplete information used in connection therewith would subject us to potential risks.

As part of the risk management process, Waterfall uses detailed proprietary models, including loan-level non-performing loan models, to evaluate collateral liquidation timelines and price changes by region, along with the impact of different loss mitigation plans. Additionally, Waterfall uses information, models and data supplied by third parties. Models and data are used to value potential target assets. In the event models and data prove to be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon expose us to potential risks. For example, by relying on incorrect models and data, especially valuation models, Waterfall may be induced to buy certain target assets at prices that are too high, to sell certain other assets at prices that are too low, or to miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging based on faulty models and data may prove to be unsuccessful.

The failure of a third-party servicer or the failure of our own internal servicing system to effectively service our portfolio of mortgage loans would materially and adversely affect us.

Most mortgage loans and securitizations of mortgage loans require a servicer to manage collections for each of the underlying loans. We will service our loan portfolio under a “component servicing” model (which includes the use of primary servicing by nationally recognized servicers and sub-servicing by participants in our Qualified Partner Program (“QPP”), who specialize in assets for the particular region in which the asset sits), which allows for highly customized loss mitigation strategies for non-performing and performing loans. Performing SBC loans (either loans purchased with historical activity, i.e., not originated, purchased in the secondary market or ReadyCap Commercial originations) will be securitized with us retaining the subordinate tranches. KeyBank Real Estate Capital performs both primary and special servicing with all loss mitigation decisions directed by Waterfall (which also maintains an option to purchase delinquent loans from the securitization trust). Non-performing SBC loans are serviced either through an approved SBC primary servicer providing both primary and special servicing or providing only primary servicing with special servicing contracted to smaller regionally-focused SBC operators and servicers who gain eligibility to participate in our QPP. Servicers’ responsibilities include providing collection activities, loan workouts, modifications and refinancings, foreclosures, short sales, sales of foreclosed real estate and financings to facilitate such sales. Both default frequency and default severity of loans may depend upon the quality of the servicer. If a servicer is not vigilant in encouraging the borrowers to make their monthly payments, the borrowers may be far less likely to make these payments, which could result in a higher frequency of default. If a servicer takes longer to liquidate non-performing assets, loss severities may be higher than originally anticipated. Higher loss severity may also be caused by less competent dispositions of real estate owned properties.

We will seek to increase the value of non-performing loans through special servicing activities that will be performed by our participating special servicers. Servicer quality is of prime importance in the default performance of SBC loans and SBC ABS assets. Should we have to transfer loan servicing to another servicer, the transfer of loans to a new servicer could result in more loans becoming delinquent because of confusion or lack of attention. Servicing transfers involve notifying borrowers to remit payments to the new servicer, and these transfers could result in misdirected notices, misapplied payments, data input errors and other problems. Industry experience indicates that mortgage loan delinquencies and defaults are likely to temporarily increase during the transition to a new servicer and immediately following the servicing transfer. Further, when loan servicing is transferred, loan servicing fees may increase, which may have an adverse effect on the credit support of assets held by us.

Effectively servicing our portfolio of SBC loans is critical to our success, particularly given our strategy of maximizing the value of our portfolio with our loan modifications, loss mitigation, restructuring and other special servicing activities, and therefore, if one of our servicers fails to effectively service the portfolio of mortgage loans, it could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The bankruptcy of a third-party servicer would adversely affect our business, results of operation and financial condition.

Depending on the provisions of the agreement with the servicer of any of our SBC loans, the servicer may be allowed to commingle collections on the mortgage loans owned by us with its own funds for certain periods of time (usually a few business days) after the servicer receives them. In the event of a bankruptcy of a servicer, we may not have a perfected interest in any collections on the mortgage loans owned by us that are in that servicer’s possession at the time of the commencement of the bankruptcy case. The servicer may not be required to turn over to us any collections on mortgage loans that are in its possession at the time it goes into bankruptcy. To the extent that a servicer has commingled collections on mortgage loans with its own funds, we may be required to return to that servicer as preferential transfers all payments received on the mortgage loans during a period of up to one year prior to that servicer’s bankruptcy.

If a servicer were to go into bankruptcy, it may stop performing its servicing functions (including any obligations to advance moneys in respect of a mortgage loan) and it may be difficult to find a third party to act as that servicer’s successor. Alternatively, the servicer may take the position that unless the amount of its compensation is increased or the terms of its servicing obligations are otherwise altered it will stop performing its obligations as servicer. If it were to be difficult to find a third party to succeed the servicer, we may have no choice but to agree to a servicer’s demands. The servicer may also have the power, with the approval of the bankruptcy court, to assign its rights and obligations to a third party without our consent, and even over our objections, and without complying with the terms of the applicable servicing agreement. The automatic stay provisions of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) would prevent (unless the permission of the bankruptcy court were obtained) any action by us to enforce the servicer’s obligations under its servicing

agreement or to collect any amount owed to us by the servicer. The Bankruptcy Code also prevents the removal of the servicer as servicer and the appointment of a successor without the permission of the bankruptcy court or the consent of the servicer.

New entrants in the market for SBC loan acquisitions and originations could adversely impact our ability to acquire SBC loans at attractive prices and originate SBC loans at attractive risk-adjusted returns.

Although we believe that we are currently one of only a handful of active market participants in the secondary SBC loan market, new entrants in this market could adversely impact our ability to acquire and originate SBC loans at attractive prices. In acquiring and originating our target assets, we may compete with numerous regional and community banks, specialty finance companies, savings and loan associations, mortgage bankers, insurance companies, mutual funds, institutional investors, investment banking firms, other lenders and other entities, and we expect that others may be organized in the future. The effect of the existence of additional REITs and other institutions may be increased competition for the available supply of SBC assets suitable for purchase, which may cause the price for such assets to rise, which may limit our ability to generate desired returns. Additionally, origination of SBC loans by our competitors may increase the availability of SBC loans which may result in a reduction of interest rates on SBC loans. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that may not be available to us. Many of our competitors are not subject to the operating constraints associated with REIT tax compliance or maintenance of an exemption from the 1940 Act. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of SBC loans and ABS assets and establish more relationships than us.

We cannot assure you that the competitive pressures we may face will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Also, as a result of this competition, desirable investments in our target assets may be limited in the future and we may not be able to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities from time to time, as we can provide no assurance that it will be able to identify and make investments that are consistent with our investment objectives.

We cannot predict the unintended consequences and market distortions that may stem from far-ranging interventions in the financial system and oversight of financial markets.

U.S. Federal government agencies, including the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the SEC, as well as other governmental and regulatory bodies, have taken or are taking various actions involving in the financial system and oversight of the financial markets. We cannot predict whether or when such actions may occur or what effect, if any, such actions could have on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In July 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) in part to impose significant investment restrictions and capital requirements on banking entities and other organizations that are significant to U.S. financial markets. For instance, the Dodd-Frank Act imposed significant restrictions on the proprietary trading activities of certain banking entities and has subjected other systemically significant organizations regulated by the U.S. Federal Reserve to increased capital requirements and quantitative limits for engaging in such activities. The Dodd-Frank Act also sought to reform the asset-backed securitization market (including the MBS market) by requiring the retention of a portion of the credit risk inherent in the pool of securitized assets and by imposing additional registration and disclosure requirements. The Dodd-Frank Act also imposed significant regulatory restrictions on the origination and securitization of commercial mortgage loans.

In September 2014, the SEC adopted significant changes to Regulation AB, which revised requirements governing disclosure, reporting, registration, and the offering process for asset-backed securities further impacting the commercial and residential mortgage loan securitization markets as well as the market for the re-securitization of MBS. The Dodd-Frank Act also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”), which oversees many of the core laws which regulate the mortgage industry, including the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act. While the full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act and the role of the CFPB cannot be assessed until all implementing regulations are released, the Dodd-Frank Act’s extensive requirements may have a significant effect on the financial markets, and may affect the availability or terms of financing from our lender counterparties and the availability or terms of SBC loans and MBS, both of which may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

More recently, the Trump Administration has sought to deregulate the U.S. financial industry, such as by altering provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, including certain provisions affecting the mortgage industry. In May 2018, Congress enacted the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the "EGRRCPA"), which included several provisions that seek to reduce the regulatory burden on smaller banking entities engaged in mortgage lending, as well as to expand mortgage credit availability. For example, the EGRRCPA exempts designated institutions from compliance with ability-to-pay requirements for certain qualified residential mortgage loans, expanding the definition of qualified mortgages which may be held by a financial institution, and also exempts certain institutions from data disclosure requirements under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975. While the full outcome of these reforms is uncertain, such actions may affect our business.

Joint venture investments could be adversely affected by our lack of sole decision-making authority, our reliance on joint venture partners’ financial condition and liquidity and disputes between us and our joint venture partners.

We may make investments through joint ventures. Such joint venture investments may involve risks not otherwise present when we make investments without partners, including the following:

we may not have exclusive control over the investment or the joint venture, which may prevent us from taking actions that are in our best interest and could create the potential risk of creating impasses on decisions, such as with respect to acquisitions or dispositions;

joint venture agreements often restrict the transfer of a partner’s interest or may otherwise restrict our ability to sell the interest when we desire and/or on advantageous terms;

joint venture agreements may contain buy-sell provisions pursuant to which one partner may initiate procedures requiring the other partner to choose between buying the other partner’s interest or selling its interest to that partner;

a partner may, at any time, have economic or business interests or goals that are, or that may become, inconsistent with our business interests or goals;

a partner may be in a position to take action contrary to our instructions, requests, policies or objectives, including our policy with respect to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and our exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act;

a partner may fail to fund its share of required capital contributions or may become bankrupt, which may mean that we and any other remaining partners generally would remain liable for the joint venture’s liabilities;

our relationships with our partners are contractual in nature and may be terminated or dissolved under the terms of the applicable joint venture agreements and, in such event, we may not continue to own or operate the interests or investments underlying such relationship or may need to purchase such interests or investments at a premium to the market price to continue ownership;

disputes between us and a partner may result in litigation or arbitration that could increase our expenses and prevent our Manager and our officers and directors from focusing their time and efforts on our business and could result in subjecting the investments owned by the joint venture to additional risk; or

we may, in certain circumstances, be liable for the actions of a partner, and the activities of a partner could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT or maintain our exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act, even though we do not control the joint venture.

any of the above may subject us to liabilities in excess of those contemplated and adversely affect the value of our joint venture investments.

Our inability to manage future growth effectively could have an adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to achieve our investment objectives will depend on our ability to grow, which will depend, in turn, on Waterfall’s ability to identify, acquire, originate and invest in SBC loans and ABS assets that meet our investment criteria. Our ability to grow our business will depend in large part on our ability to expand our SBC loan origination activities. Any failure to effectively manage our future growth, including a failure to successfully expand our SBC loan origination activities could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Declines in the fair market values of our assets may adversely affect periodic reported results and credit availability, which may reduce earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Our SBC loans held-for-sale and SBC ABS are carried at fair value and future mortgage related assets may also be carried at fair value. Accordingly, changes in the fair value of these assets may impact the results of our operations for the period in which such change in value occurs. The expectation of changes in real estate prices, which is beyond our control, is a major determinant of the value of SBC loans and SBC ABS.

Many of the assets in our portfolio are and will likely be SBC loans and SBC ABS that are not publicly traded. The fair value of assets that are not publicly traded may not be readily determinable. We value these assets quarterly at fair value, as determined in accordance with applicable accounting standards, which may include unobservable inputs. Because such valuations are subjective, the fair value of certain of our assets may fluctuate over short periods of time and our determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these assets existed.

A decline in the fair market value of our assets may adversely affect us, particularly in instances where we have borrowed money based on the fair market value of those assets. If the fair market value of those assets declines, the lender may require us to post additional collateral to support the loan. If we are unable to post the additional collateral, we would have to sell the assets at a time when we might not otherwise choose to do so. A reduction in credit available may reduce our earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to stockholders.

Our investments may include subordinated tranches of ABS and RMBS, which are subordinate in right of payment to more senior securities.

Our investments may include subordinated tranches of ABS and RMBS, which are subordinated classes of securities in a structure of securities collateralized by a pool of assets consisting primarily of SBC loans and, accordingly, are the first or among the first to bear the loss upon a restructuring or liquidation of the underlying collateral and the last to receive payment of interest and principal. Additionally, estimated fair values of these subordinated interests tend to be more sensitive to changes in economic conditions than more senior securities. As a result, such subordinated interests generally are not actively traded and may not provide holders thereof with liquid investments.

In certain cases we may not control the special servicing of the mortgage loans included in the securities in which we may invest in and, in such cases, the special servicer may take actions that could adversely affect our interests.

With respect to the SBC ABS in which we expect to invest, overall control over the special servicing of the related underlying mortgage loans will be held by a directing certificate holder, which is appointed by the holders of the most subordinate class of securities in such series. When we acquire investment-grade classes of existing series of securities originally rated AAA, we will not have the right to appoint the directing certificate holder. In these cases, in connection with the servicing of the specially serviced mortgage loans, the related special servicer may, at the direction of the directing certificate holder, take actions with respect to the specially serviced mortgage loans that could adversely affect our interests.

Any credit ratings assigned to our SBC loans and ABS assets will be subject to ongoing evaluations and revisions and we cannot assure you that those ratings will not be downgraded.

Some of our SBC loan and ABS assets may be rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s, or S&P, or Fitch Ratings. Any credit ratings on our SBC loans and ABS assets are subject to ongoing evaluation by credit rating agencies, and we cannot assure you that any such ratings will not be changed or withdrawn by a rating agency in the future if, in its judgment, circumstances warrant. Rating agencies may assign a lower than expected rating or reduce or withdraw, or indicate that they may reduce or withdraw, their ratings of our SBC loans and ABS assets in the future. In addition, we may acquire assets with no rating or with below investment grade ratings. If the rating agencies take adverse action with respect to the rating of our SBC loans and ABS assets or if our unrated assets are illiquid, the value of these SBC loans and ABS assets could significantly decline, which would adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio and could result in losses upon disposition or the failure of borrowers to satisfy their debt service obligations to us.

The receivables underlying the ABS we may acquire are subject to credit risks, liquidity risks, interest rate risks, market risks, operations risks, structural risks and legal risks, which could result in losses to us.

We may acquire ABS securities, where the underlying pool of assets consists primarily of SBC loans. The structure of an ABS, and the terms of the investors’ interest in the underlying collateral, can vary widely depending on the type of collateral, the desires of investors and the use of credit enhancements. Individual transactions can differ markedly in both structure and execution. Important determinants of the risk associated with issuing or holding ABS include: (i) the relative seniority or subordination of the class of ABS held by an investor, (ii) the relative allocation of principal, and interest payments in the priorities by which such payments are made under the governing documents, (iii) the effect of credit losses on both the issuing vehicle and investors’ returns, (iv) whether the underlying collateral represents a fixed set of specific assets or accounts, (v) whether the underlying collateral assets are revolving or closed-end, (vi) the terms (including maturity of the ABS) under which any remaining balance in the accounts may revert to the issuing vehicle and (vii) the extent to which the entity that sold the underlying collateral to the issuing vehicle is obligated to provide support to the issuing vehicle or to investors. With respect to some types of ABS, the foregoing risks are more closely correlated with similar risks on corporate bonds of similar terms and maturities than with the performance of a pool of similar assets.

In addition, certain ABS (particularly subordinated ABS) provide that the non-payment of interest thereon in cash will not constitute an event of default in certain circumstances, and the holders of such ABS will not have available to them any associated default remedies. Interest not paid in cash will generally be capitalized and added to the outstanding principal balance of the related security. Deferral of interest through such capitalization will reduce the yield on such ABS.

Holders of ABS bear various risks, including credit risks, liquidity risks, interest rate risks, market risks, operations risks, structural risks and legal risks. Credit risk arises from (i) losses due to defaults by obligors under the underlying collateral and (ii) the issuing vehicle’s or servicer’s failure to perform their respective obligations under the transaction documents governing the ABS. These two risks may be related, as, for example, in the case of a servicer that does not provide adequate credit-review scrutiny to the underlying collateral, leading to a higher incidence of defaults.

Market risk arises from the cash flow characteristics of the ABS, which for most ABS tend to be predictable. The greatest variability in cash flows come from credit performance, including the presence of wind-down or acceleration features designed to protect the investor in the event that credit losses in the portfolio rise well above expected levels.

Interest rate risk arises for the issuer from (i) the pricing terms on the underlying collateral, (ii) the terms of the interest rate paid to holders of the ABS and (iii) the need to mark to market the excess servicing or spread account proceeds carried on the issuing vehicle’s balance sheet. For the holder of the security, interest rate risk depends on the expected life of the ABS, which may depend on prepayments on the underlying assets or the occurrence of wind-down or termination events. If the servicer becomes subject to financial difficulty or otherwise ceases to be able to carry out its functions, it may be difficult to find other acceptable substitute servicers and cash flow disruptions or losses may occur, particularly with underlying collateral comprised of non-standard receivables or receivables originated by private retailers who collect many of the payments at their stores.

Structural and legal risks include the possibility that, in a bankruptcy or similar proceeding involving the originator or the servicer (often the same entity or affiliates), a court having jurisdiction over the proceeding could determine that, because of the degree to which cash flows on the assets of the issuing vehicle may have been commingled with cash flows on the originator’s other assets (or similar reasons), (i) the assets of the issuing vehicle could be treated as never having been truly sold by the originator to the issuing vehicle and could be substantively consolidated with those of the originator, or (ii) the transfer of such assets to the issuer could be voided as a fraudulent transfer. The time and expense related to a challenge of such a determination also could result in losses and/or delayed cash flows.

Increases in interest rates could adversely affect the demand for new SBC loans, the value of our SBC loans and ABS assets and the availability of our target assets, and they could cause our interest expense to increase, which could result in reduced earnings or losses and negatively affect our profitability as well as the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We may invest in SBC loans, SBC ABS and other real estate-related investments. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political considerations, and other factors beyond our control. Rising interest rates generally reduce the demand for mortgage loans due to the higher cost of borrowing. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans originated may affect the volume of our

target assets available to us, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives. Rising interest rates may also cause our target assets that were issued prior to an interest rate increase to provide yields that are below prevailing market interest rates. If rising interest rates cause us to be unable to acquire a sufficient volume of our target assets with a yield that is above our borrowing cost, our ability to satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and make distributions may be materially and adversely affected.

The relationship between short-term and longer-term interest rates is often referred to as the “yield curve.” Ordinarily, short-term interest rates are lower than longer-term interest rates. If short-term interest rates rise disproportionately relative to longer-term interest rates (a flattening of the yield curve), our borrowing costs may increase more rapidly than the interest income earned on our assets. Because we expect that our SBC loans and ABS assets generally will bear, on average, interest based on longer-term rates than our borrowings, a flattening of the yield curve would tend to decrease our net income and the fair market value of our net assets. Additionally, to the extent cash flows from SBC loans and ABS assets that return scheduled and unscheduled principal are reinvested, the spread between the yields on the new SBC loans and ABS assets and available borrowing rates may decline, which would likely decrease our net income. It is also possible that short-term interest rates may exceed longer-term interest rates (a yield curve inversion), in which event our borrowing costs may exceed our interest income and we could incur operating losses.

Fair market values of our SBC loans and ABS assets may decline without any general increase in interest rates for a number of reasons, such as increases or expected increases in defaults, or increases or expected increases in voluntary prepayments for those SBC loans and ABS assets that are subject to prepayment risk or widening of credit spreads.

In addition, in a period of rising interest rates, our operating results will depend in large part on the difference between the income from our assets and our financing costs. We anticipate that, in most cases, the income from such assets will respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Consequently, changes in interest rates, particularly short-term interest rates, may significantly influence our net income. Increases in these rates will tend to decrease our net income and fair market value of our assets.

Interest rate fluctuations may adversely affect the level of our net income and the value of our assets and common stock.

Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political considerations and other factors beyond our control. Interest rate fluctuations present a variety of risks, including the risk of a narrowing of the difference between asset yields and borrowing rates, flattening or inversion of the yield curve and fluctuating prepayment rates, and may adversely affect our income and the value of our assets and common stock.

Some of our SBC loans will have interest rate features that adjust over time, and any interest rate caps on these loans may reduce our income or cause it to suffer a loss during periods of rising interest rates.

Our ARMs are subject to periodic and lifetime interest rate caps. Periodic interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase during any given period. Lifetime interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase through maturity of a loan. Our borrowings, including our repurchase agreement and securitizations, are not subject to similar restrictions. Accordingly, in a period of rapidly increasing interest rates, the interest rates paid on our borrowings could increase without limitation while interest rate caps would limit the interest rates on our ARMs. This problem is magnified for our ARMs that are not fully indexed. Further, some ARMs may be subject to periodic payment caps that result in a portion of the interest being deferred and added to the principal outstanding. As a result, we could receive less cash income on ARMs than we need to pay interest on our related borrowings. These factors could lower our net interest income or cause us to suffer a loss during periods of rising interest rates.

Because we hold and may originate additional fixed-rate assets, an increase in interest rates on our borrowings may adversely affect our book value.

Increases in interest rates may negatively affect the fair market value of our assets. Any fixed-rate assets we hold or originate generally will be more negatively affected by these increases than adjustable-rate assets. In accordance with accounting rules, we will be required to reduce our earnings for any decrease in the fair market value of our assets that are accounted for under the fair value option. We will be required to evaluate our assets on a quarterly basis to determine their fair value by using third-party bid price indications provided by dealers who make markets in these assets or by third-party

pricing services. If the fair value of an asset is not available from a dealer or third-party pricing service, we will estimate the fair value of the asset using a variety of methods, including discounted cash flow analysis, matrix pricing, option-adjusted spread models and fundamental analysis. Aggregate characteristics taken into consideration include type of collateral, index, margin, periodic cap, lifetime cap, underwriting standards, age and delinquency experience. However, the fair value reflects estimates and may not be indicative of the amounts we would receive in a current market exchange. If we determine that a security is other-than-temporarily impaired, we would be required to reduce the value of such security on our balance sheet by recording an impairment charge in our income statement and our stockholders’ equity would be correspondingly reduced. Reductions in stockholders’ equity decrease the amounts we may borrow to originate or purchase additional target assets, which could restrict our ability to increase our net income.

Because the assets we will hold and expect to acquire may experience periods of illiquidity, we may lose profits or be prevented from earning capital gains if we cannot sell SBC loans and ABS assets at an opportune time.

We bear the risk of being unable to dispose of our assets at advantageous times or in a timely manner because SBC loans and ABS assets generally experience periods of illiquidity, including the recent period of delinquencies and defaults with respect to residential mortgage loans. Additionally, we believe that we are currently one of only a handful of active market participants in the secondary SBC loan market and the lack of liquidity may result from the absence of a willing buyer or an established market for these assets, as well as legal or contractual restrictions on resale or the unavailability of financing for these assets. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be relatively limited, which may cause us to incur losses.

Our non-U.S. assets may subject us to the uncertainty of foreign laws and markets and currency rate exposure.

We have recently invested in, and in the future may originate, invest in or acquire non-U.S. assets. Investments in countries outside of the United States may subject us to risks of multiple and conflicting tax laws and regulations, and other laws and regulations that may make foreclosure and the exercise of other remedies in the case of default more difficult or costly compared to U.S. assets as well as political and economic instability abroad, any of which factors could adversely affect our receipt of returns on and distributions from these assets. In addition, such assets may be denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars which would expose us to foreign currency risk.

Maintenance of our 1940 Act exception imposes limits on our operations.

We intend to conduct our operations so that neither we nor our subsidiaries are required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act. Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of the issuer’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Excluded from the term “investment securities,” among other things, are U.S. Government securities and securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries that are not themselves investment companies and are not relying on the exception from the definition of investment company set forth in Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act.

We intend to conduct our operations so that we do not come within the definition of an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act because fewer than 40% of our total assets on an unconsolidated basis will consist of “investment securities.” The securities issued to us by any wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiary that we currently own or may form in the future that is excluded from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we may own, may not have a value in excess of 40% of the value of our total assets on an unconsolidated basis. We will monitor our holdings to ensure continuing and ongoing compliance with this test. However, qualification for exclusion from registration under the 1940 Act will limit our ability to make certain investments. In addition, we believe that we will not be considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act because we will not engage primarily or hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Rather, we will be primarily engaged in the non-investment company businesses of our subsidiaries, and thus the type of businesses in which we may engage through our subsidiaries is limited.

In connection with the Section 3(a)(1)(c) analysis, the determination of whether an entity is a majority-owned subsidiary of our Company is made by us. The 1940 Act defines a majority-owned subsidiary of a person as a company 50% or more of the outstanding voting securities of which are owned by such person, or by another company which is a majority-owned subsidiary of such person. The 1940 Act further defines voting securities as any security presently entitling the owner or holder thereof to vote for the election of directors of a company. We will treat companies in which we own at least a majority of the outstanding voting securities as majority-owned subsidiaries for purposes of the 40% test. We will also treat securitization trusts as majority-owned subsidiaries for purposes of this analysis even where the securities issued by such trusts do not meet the definition of voting securities under the 1940 Act only in cases where this conclusion is supported by an opinion of counsel that the trust certificates or other interests issued by such securitization trusts are the functional equivalent of voting securities and that, in any event, such securitization trusts should be considered to be majority-owned subsidiaries for purposes of this analysis. We have not requested the SEC, or its staff, to concur or approve our treatment of any securitization trust or other company as a majority-owned subsidiary and neither the SEC nor its staff has done so. If the SEC, or its staff, were to disagree with our treatment of one of more companies as majority-owned subsidiaries, we would need to adjust our strategy and our assets in order to continue to pass the 40% test. Any such adjustment in our strategy could have a material adverse effect on us.

We believe that certain of our subsidiaries qualify to be excluded from the definition of investment company under the 1940 Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, which is available for entities “primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” This exception generally requires that at least 55% of such subsidiaries’ assets must be comprised of qualifying assets and at least 80% of their total assets must be comprised of qualifying assets and real estate-related assets under the 1940 Act. We will treat as qualifying assets for this purpose SBC loans and other mortgages, in each case meeting certain other qualifications based upon SEC staff no-action letters. Although SEC staff no-action letters have not specifically addressed the categorization of these types of assets, we will also treat as qualifying assets for this purpose transitional loans wholly-secured by first priority liens on real estate that provide interim financing to borrowers seeking short-term capital (with terms of generally up to three years), MBS representing ownership of an entire pool of mortgage loans, and real estate-owned properties that may be acquired in connection with mortgage loan foreclosures. We expect each of our subsidiaries relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) may invest an additional 25% of its assets in either qualifying assets or in other types of mortgages, interests in MBS or other securitizations, securities of REITs, and other real estate-related assets. We expect each of our subsidiaries relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) to rely on guidance published by the SEC, or its staff, or if such guidance has not been published, on our own analyses to determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets. To the extent that the SEC, or its staff, publishes new or different guidance with respect to these matters, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. Although we intend to monitor our portfolio periodically and prior to each investment acquisition, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain an exclusion for these subsidiaries. In addition, we may be limited in our ability to make certain investments and these limitations could result in the subsidiary holding assets we might wish to sell or selling assets we might wish to hold.

In 2011, the SEC solicited public comment on a wide range of issues relating to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, including the nature of the assets that qualify for purposes of the exclusion and whether mortgage REITs should be regulated in a manner similar to registered investment companies. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of REITs, including the SEC, or its staff, providing more specific or different guidance regarding this exclusion, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If our Company or our subsidiaries fail to maintain an exception or exemption from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (i) change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (ii) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or (iii) register as an investment company, any of which would negatively affect the value of our shares of common stock, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to make distributions which would have an adverse effect on our business and the value of our shares of common stock.

Certain of our subsidiaries may rely on the exclusion from the definition of investment company provided by Section 3(c)(6) to the extent that they hold mortgage assets through majority-owned subsidiaries that rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C). Little interpretive guidance has been issued by the SEC, or its staff, with respect to Section 3(c)(6) and any guidance published by the SEC, or its staff, could require us to adjust our strategy accordingly. Although little interpretive guidance has been issued with respect to Section 3(c)(6), we believe that certain of our subsidiaries may rely on Section 3(c)(6) if, among other things, 55% of the assets of such subsidiaries consist of, and at least 55% of the income of such subsidiaries are derived from, qualifying real estate investment assets owned by wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries of such subsidiaries.

Qualification for exemption from registration under the 1940 Act will limit our ability to make certain investments. For example, these restrictions will limit the ability of our subsidiaries to invest directly in MBS that represent less than the entire ownership in a pool of mortgage loans, debt and equity tranches of securitizations and MBS, and real estate companies or in assets not related to real estate.

No assurance can be given that the SEC, or its staff, will concur with our classification of our Company or our subsidiaries’ assets or that the SEC, or its staff, will not, in the future, issue further guidance that may require us to reclassify those assets for purposes of qualifying for an exclusion from regulation under the 1940 Act. To the extent that the SEC staff provides more specific guidance regarding any of the matters bearing upon the definition of investment company and the exceptions to that definition, we may be required to adjust our investment strategy accordingly. Additional guidance from the SEC, or its staff, could provide additional flexibility to us, or it could further inhibit our ability to pursue the investment strategy we have chosen. If the SEC, or its staff takes a position contrary to our analysis with respect to the characterization of any of the assets or securities we invest in, we may be deemed an unregistered investment company. Therefore, in order not to be required to register as an investment company, we may need to dispose of a significant portion of our assets or securities or acquire significant other additional assets which may have lower returns than our expected portfolio, or we may need to modify our business plan to register as an investment company, which would result in significantly increased operating expenses and would likely entail significantly reducing our indebtedness, which could also require us to sell a significant portion of our assets. We cannot assure you that we would be able to complete these dispositions or acquisitions of assets, or deleveraging, on favorable terms, or at all. Consequently, any modification of our business plan could have a material adverse effect on us. Further, if the SEC determined that we were an unregistered investment company, we would be subject to monetary penalties and injunctive relief in an action brought by the SEC, we would potentially be unable to enforce contracts with third parties and third parties could seek to obtain rescission of transactions undertaken during the period for which it was established that we were an unregistered investment company. Any of these results would have a material adverse effect on us.

Since we are not expected to be subject to the 1940 Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, we will not be subject to its substantive provisions, including provisions requiring diversification of investments, limiting leverage and restricting investments in illiquid assets.

Rapid changes in the values of our target assets may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or our exclusion from the 1940 Act.

If the fair market value or income potential of our target assets declines as a result of increased interest rates, prepayment rates, general market conditions, government actions or other factors, we may need to increase our real estate assets and income or liquidate our non-qualifying assets to maintain our REIT qualification or our exclusion from the 1940 Act. If the decline in real estate asset values or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish. We may have to make decisions that we otherwise would not make absent the REIT and 1940 Act considerations.

The working capital advances we provide to small business through Knight Capital may become uncollectible, and large amounts of uncollectible advances may adversely affect our performance.

Through Knight Capital, we provide working capital advances to small businesses through the purchase of their future revenues. We enter into a contract with the business whereby we pay the business an upfront amount in return for a specific amount of the business’s future revenue receivables. Our working capital advance activity presents risks, including the illiquidity of the cash advances; our critical reliance on certain individuals to operate the business; collection issues and challenges given that working capital advances are generally unsecured; limited availability of financing sources, such as securitizations, to fund such advances; and sensitivity to general economic and regulatory conditions. We face the risk that merchants will fail to repay advances made by us in these transactions. Rates at which merchants do not repay amounts owed under these transactions may be significantly affected by economic downturns or general economic conditions beyond our control or beyond the control of the small businesses who repay the amounts advanced based on the volume of their revenue streams. While we have established an allowance for doubtful purchased future receivables based on historical and other objective information, it is also dependent on our subjective assessment based upon our experience and judgment. Actual losses are difficult to forecast and, as a result, there can be no assurance that our allowance for losses will be sufficient to absorb any actual losses. If we are unable to collect the full amount of the working capital advance receivable we acquire through the advance, we may be required to expend monies in connection with remedial actions, which expenditures could be material. In addition, the working capital advances that we make are relatively illiquid with

no established market for their purchase and sale, and there can be no assurance that we would be able to liquidate those investments in a timely manner, or at all.

Our business of providing working capital advances to small businesses through the purchase of its future revenue depends on our ability to fund our working capital advances and collect payment on and service the working capital advances.

We rely on unaffiliated banks for the Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) transaction process used to disburse the proceeds of working capital advances to our customers and to automatically collect scheduled payments on such working capital advances. As we are not a bank, we do not have the ability to directly access the ACH payment network, and must therefore rely on an FDIC-insured depository institution to process our transactions. If we cannot continue to obtain such services from our current institutions or elsewhere, or if we cannot transition to another processor quickly, our ability to fund working capital advances and process payments will suffer. If we fail to fund working capital advances promptly as expected, we risk loss of customers and damage to our reputation which could materially harm our business. If we fail to adequately collect amounts owing in respect of the working capital advances, as a result of the loss of direct debiting or otherwise, then payments to us may be delayed or reduced and our revenue and operating results may be harmed.

Risks Related to Our Company

Any disruption in the availability and/or functionality of our technology infrastructure and systems could adversely impact our business.

Our ability to acquire and originate SBC loans and manage any related interest rate risks and credit risks is critical to our success and is highly dependent upon the efficient and uninterrupted operation of our computer and communications hardware and software systems. For example, we will rely on our proprietary database to track and maintain all loan performance and servicing activity data for loans in our portfolio. This data is used to manage the portfolio, track loan performance, develop and execute asset disposition strategies. In addition, this data is used to evaluate and price new investment opportunities. Some of these systems will be located at our facility and some will be maintained by third-party vendors. Any significant interruption in the availability and functionality of these systems could harm our business. In the event of a systems failure or interruption by our third-party vendors, we will have limited ability to affect the timing and success of systems restoration. If such interruptions continue for a prolonged period of time, it could have a material and adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

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

A cyber incident is considered to be any adverse event that threatens the confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information resources. These incidents may be an intentional attack or an unintentional event and could involve gaining unauthorized access to our information systems for purposes of misappropriating assets, stealing confidential information, corrupting data or causing operational disruption. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusions, including by computer hackers, nation-state affiliated actors, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. The result of these incidents may include disrupted operations, misstated or unreliable financial data, disrupted market price of our common stock, misappropriation of assets, liability for stolen assets or information, increased cybersecurity protection and insurance cost, regulatory enforcement, litigation and damage to our relationships. These risks require continuous and likely increasing attention and other resources from us to, among other actions, identify and quantify these risks, upgrade and expand our technologies, systems and processes to adequately address them and provide periodic training for our employees to assist them in detecting phishing, malware and other schemes. Such attention diverts time and other resources from other activities and there is no assurance that our efforts will be effective. Potential sources for disruption, damage or failure of our information technology systems include, without limitation, computer viruses, security breaches, human error, cyber- attacks, natural disasters and defects in design. Additionally, due to the size and nature of our company, we rely on third-party service providers for many aspects of our business. We can provide no assurance that the networks and systems that our third-party vendors have established or use will be effective. As our reliance on technology has increased, so have the risks posed to both our information systems and those provided by third-party service providers. We have implemented processes, procedures and internal controls to help mitigate cybersecurity risks and cyber intrusions, but these measures, as well as our increased awareness of the nature and extent of a risk of a

cyber incident, do not guarantee that our financial results, operations or confidential information will not be negatively impacted by such an incident.

We are highly dependent on information systems and communication systems; systems failures and other operational disruptions could significantly affect our business, which may, in turn, negatively affect our operating results and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Our business is highly dependent on our communications and our information systems, which may interface with or depend on systems operated by third parties, including market counterparties, loan originators and other service providers. Any failure or interruption of these systems could cause delays or other problems in our activities, including in our target asset origination or acquisition activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and negatively affect the value of our common stock and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Additionally, we rely heavily on financial, accounting and other data processing systems and operational risks arising from mistakes made in the confirmation or settlement of transactions, from transactions not being properly booked, evaluated or accounted for or other similar disruption in our operations may cause us to suffer financial loss, the disruption of our business, liability to third parties, regulatory intervention or reputational damage.

Accounting rules for certain of our transactions are highly complex and involve significant judgment and assumptions, and changes in such rules, accounting interpretations or our assumptions could adversely impact our ability to timely and accurately prepare our consolidated financial statements.

We are subject to Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) standards and interpretations that can result in significant accounting changes that could have a material and adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition. Accounting rules for financial instruments, including the acquisition and sales or securitization of mortgage loans, investments in ABS, derivatives, investment consolidations and other aspects of our anticipated operations are highly complex and involve significant judgment and assumptions. For example, our estimates and judgments are based on a number of factors, including projected cash flows from the collateral securing our SBC loans, the likelihood of repayment in full at the maturity of a loan, potential for an SBC loan refinancing opportunity in the future and expected market discount rates for varying property types. These complexities could lead to a delay in the preparation of financial information and the delivery of this information to our stockholders.

Changes in accounting rules, interpretations or our assumptions could also undermine our ability to prepare timely and accurate financial statements, which could result in a lack of investor confidence in our financial information and could materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Changes in accounting rules could occur at any time and could impact us in significantly negative ways that we are unable to predict or protect against.

As has been widely publicized, the SEC, the FASB and other regulatory bodies that establish the accounting rules applicable to us have proposed or enacted a wide array of changes to accounting rules over the last several years. Moreover, in the future these regulators may propose additional changes that we do not currently anticipate. Changes to accounting rules that apply to us could significantly impact our business or our reported financial performance in negative ways that we cannot predict or protect against. We cannot predict whether any changes to current accounting rules will occur or what impact any codified changes will have on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Provisions for loan losses are difficult to estimate.

Our provision for loan losses is evaluated on a quarterly basis. The determination of our provision for loan losses requires us to make certain estimates and judgments, which may be difficult to determine. Our estimates and judgments are based on a number of factors, including (1) whether cash from operations is sufficient to cover the debt service requirements currently and into the future, (2) the ability of the borrower to refinance the loan and (3) the property’s liquidation value, all of which remain uncertain and are subjective. Our estimates and judgments may not be correct and, therefore, our results of operations and financial condition could be severely impacted.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses-Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments (Topic 326), which replaces the current “incurred loss” model for recognizing credit

losses with an “expected loss” model referred to as the Current Expected Credit Loss (“CECL”) model. Under the CECL model, we are required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is to be based on information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. This measurement will take place at the time the financial asset is first added to the balance sheet and updated quarterly thereafter. This differs significantly from the “incurred loss” model required under current GAAP, which delays recognition until it is probable a loss has been incurred.

Accordingly, we expect that the adoption of the CECL model will materially affect how we determine our allowance for loan losses and could require us to significantly increase our allowance and recognize provisions for loan losses earlier in the lending cycle. Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for loan losses. If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for loan losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could have a material adverse effect on our business and stock price.

As a public company, we are required to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Internal control over financial reporting is complex and may be revised over time to adapt to changes in our business or changes in applicable accounting rules. We cannot assure you that our internal control over financial reporting will be effective in the future or that a material weakness will not be discovered with respect to a prior period for which we believe that internal controls were effective. If we are not able to maintain or document effective internal control over financial reporting, our independent registered public accounting firm may not be able to certify as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the required dates. Matters impacting our internal controls may cause us to be unable to report our financial information on a timely basis, or may cause us to restate previously issued financial information, and thereby subject us to adverse regulatory consequences, including sanctions or investigations by the SEC or violations of applicable stock exchange listing rules. There could also be a negative reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of investor confidence in us and the reliability of our financial statements. Confidence in the reliability of our financial statements is also likely to suffer if we or our independent registered public accounting firm reports a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. This could materially and adversely affect us by, for example, leading to a decline in our stock price and impairing our ability to raise capital.

Risks Related to Our Relationship with Our Manager

We depend on Waterfall and its key personnel for our success. We may not find a suitable replacement for Waterfall if the management agreement with Waterfall is terminated, or if key personnel leave the employment of Waterfall or otherwise become unavailable to us.

We are dependent on Waterfall for our day-to-day management. Our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, who are employed by Waterfall, are dedicated exclusively to our business, and several of Waterfall’s accounting professionals are also dedicated exclusively to our business, and such persons are expected to be dedicated to us. In addition, Waterfall or we may in the future hire additional personnel that may be dedicated to our business. However, other than our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, Waterfall is not obligated under the management agreement to dedicate any of its personnel exclusively to our business, nor is it or its personnel obligated to dedicate any specific portion of its or their time to our business. We will also be responsible for the costs of our own employees. However, with the exception of our subsidiaries, which will employ their own personnel, we do not expect to have our own employees. Accordingly, we believe that our success will depend to a significant extent upon the efforts, experience, diligence, skill and network of business contacts of the executive officers and key personnel of Waterfall. The executive officers and key personnel of Waterfall will evaluate, negotiate, structure, close and monitor our acquisitions of assets, and our success will depend on its continued service. The departure of any of the executive officers or key personnel of Waterfall could have a material adverse effect on our performance. In addition, we offer no assurance that Waterfall will remain our Manager or that we will continue to have access to Waterfall’s principals and professionals. The current term of our management agreement with Waterfall runs through October 31, 2020 and, unless terminated in accordance with its terms, our management agreement will automatically renew for a successive one-year term on each anniversary thereafter. If the management agreement is terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage the Company, we may not be able to execute our business plan.

Should one or more of Waterfall’s key personnel leave the employment of Waterfall or otherwise become unavailable to the Company, Waterfall may not be able to find a suitable replacement and the Company may not be able to execute certain aspects of our business plan.

There are various conflicts of interest in our relationship with Waterfall which could result in decisions that are not in the best interests of our stockholders.

We are subject to conflicts of interest arising out of our relationship with Waterfall and its affiliates. Our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer are dedicated exclusively to us, along with several of Waterfall’s accounting professionals, a marketing professional, and an information technology professional whom are also dedicated primarily to us. With the exception of our subsidiaries, which will employ their own personnel, we do not expect to have our own employees. In addition, we expect that the Chief Executive Officer, President, portfolio managers and any other appropriate personnel of Waterfall will devote such portion of their time to our affairs as is necessary to enable us to effectively operate its business. Waterfall and our officers may have conflicts between their duties to us and their duties to, and interests in, Waterfall and its affiliates. Waterfall is not required to devote a specific amount of time or the services of any particular individual to our operations. Waterfall manages or provides services to other clients, and we will compete with these other clients for Waterfall’s resources and support. The ability of Waterfall and its officers and personnel to engage in other business activities may reduce the time they spend advising us.

There may also be conflicts in allocating assets that are suitable for us and other clients of Waterfall and its affiliates. Waterfall manages a series of funds and a limited number of separate accounts, which focus on a range of ABS and other credit strategies. None of these other funds or separate accounts focus on SBC loans as their primary business strategy.

To address certain potential conflicts arising from our relationship with Waterfall or its affiliates, Waterfall has agreed in the side letter agreement that, for so long as the management agreement is in effect, neither it nor any of its affiliates will (i) sponsor or manage any additional investment vehicle where we do not participate as an investor whose primary investment strategy will involve SBC mortgage loans, unless Waterfall obtains the prior approval of a majority of our board of directors (including a majority of our independent directors), or (ii) acquire a portfolio of assets, a majority of which (by value or UPB) are SBC mortgage loans on behalf of another investment vehicle (other than acquisitions of SBC ABS), unless we are first offered the investment opportunity and a majority of our board of directors (including a majority of our independent directors) decide not to acquire such assets.

The side letter agreement does not cover SBC ABS acquired in the market and non-real estate secured loans and we may compete with other existing clients of Waterfall and its affiliates, other funds managed by Waterfall that focus on a range of ABS and other credit strategies and separately managed accounts, and future clients of Waterfall and its affiliates in acquiring SBC ABS, non-real estate secured loans and portfolios of assets less than a majority of which (by value or UPB) are SBC loans, and in acquiring other target assets that do not involve SBC loans.

We will pay Waterfall substantial management fees regardless of the performance of our portfolio. Waterfall’s entitlement to a base management fee, which is not based upon performance metrics or goals, might reduce its incentive to devote its time and effort to seeking assets that provide attractive risk-adjusted returns for our portfolio. This in turn could hurt both our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and the market price of our common stock.

The management agreement was negotiated between related parties and their terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if they had been negotiated with unaffiliated third parties.

The termination of the management agreement may be difficult and require payment of a substantial termination fee or other amounts, including in the case of termination for unsatisfactory performance, which may adversely affect our inclination to end our relationship with Waterfall.

Termination of the management agreement without cause is difficult and costly. Our independent directors will review Waterfall’s performance and the management fees annually and, following the initial term, the management agreement may be terminated annually upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors, or by a vote of the holders of at least a majority of the outstanding shares of the Company common stock (other than shares held by members of our senior management team and affiliates of Waterfall), based upon: (i) Waterfall’s unsatisfactory performance that is materially detrimental to our Company, or (ii) a determination that the management fees or incentive

distribution payable to Waterfall are not fair, subject to Waterfall’s right to prevent termination based on unfair fees by accepting a reduction of management fees or incentive distribution agreed to by at least two-thirds of our independent directors. We must provide Waterfall with 180 days prior notice of any such termination. Additionally, upon such a termination by us without cause (or upon termination by Waterfall due to our material breach), the management agreement provides that we will pay Waterfall a termination fee equal to three times the average annual base management fee earned by Waterfall during the prior 24-month period immediately preceding the date of termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter prior to the date of termination, except upon an internalization. Additionally, if the management agreement is terminated under circumstances in which we are obligated to make a termination payment to Waterfall, our operating partnership shall repurchase, concurrently with such termination, the Class A special unit for an amount equal to three times the average annual amount of the incentive distribution paid or payable in respect of the Class A special unit during the 24-month period immediately preceding such termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter before the date of termination. These provisions may increase the cost to our Company of terminating the management agreement and adversely affect our ability to terminate Waterfall without cause.

If we internalize our management functions or if Waterfall is internalized by another sponsored program, we may be unable to obtain key personnel, and the consideration we pay for any such internalization could exceed the amount of any termination fee, either of which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may engage in an internalization transaction, become self-managed and, if this were to occur, certain key employees may not become our employees but may instead remain employees of Waterfall or its affiliates. An inability to manage an internalization transaction effectively could thus result in us incurring excess costs and suffering deficiencies in our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting. Such deficiencies could cause us to incur additional costs, and our management’s attention could be diverted from most effectively managing our investments. Additionally, if another program sponsored by Waterfall internalizes Waterfall, key personnel of Waterfall, who also are key personnel of the other sponsored program, would become employees of the other program and would no longer be available to us. Any such loss of key personnel could adversely impact our ability to execute certain aspects of our business plan. Furthermore, in the case of any internalization transaction, we expect that we would be required to pay consideration to compensate Waterfall for the internalization in an amount that we will negotiate with Waterfall in good faith and which will require approval of at least a majority of our independent directors. It is possible that such consideration could exceed the amount of the termination fee that would be due to Waterfall if the conditions for terminating the management agreement without cause are satisfied and we elected to terminate the management agreement and payment of such consideration could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Class A special unit entitling Waterfall to an incentive distribution may induce Waterfall to make certain investments that may not be favorable to us, including speculative investments.

Under the partnership agreement of our operating partnership, Waterfall, the holder of the Class A special unit, will be entitled to receive an incentive distribution that may cause Waterfall to place undue emphasis on the maximization of our “core earnings” as defined under the partnership agreement at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, to achieve a higher incentive distribution. Investments with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative. This could result in increased risk to the value of our portfolio. For a discussion of the calculation of core earnings under the partnership agreement, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Incentive Distribution Payable to Our Manager” included in this annual report on Form 10-K.

Our board of directors will not approve each investment and financing decision made by Waterfall unless required by our investment guidelines.

We have authorized Waterfall to follow broad investment guidelines established by our board of directors. Our board of directors periodically reviews our investment guidelines and investment portfolio but does not, and is not required to, review all of our proposed investments. These investment guidelines may be changed from time to time by our board of directors without the approval of our stockholders. To the extent that our board of directors approves material changes to the investment guidelines, we will inform stockholders of such changes through disclosure in our periodic reports and other filings required under the Exchange Act. In addition, in conducting its periodic reviews, our board of directors may rely primarily on information provided to them by Waterfall. Furthermore, Waterfall may use complex strategies, and

transactions entered into may be costly, difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our board of directors. Accordingly, Waterfall will have great latitude in determining the types and amounts of target assets it may decide are attractive investments for us, which could result in investment returns that are substantially below expectations or that result in losses, which would materially and adversely affect our business operations and results.

Risks to Our Residential Mortgage Lending Business

Interest rate mismatches between our ARMs and RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs and our borrowings used to fund our purchases of these assets may cause us to suffer losses.

We will likely fund our residential mortgage loans and RMBS with borrowings that have interest rates that adjust more frequently than the interest rate indices and repricing terms of ARMs and RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs. Accordingly, if short-term interest rates increase, our borrowing costs may increase faster than the interest rates on our ARMs and RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs adjust. As a result, in a period of rising interest rates, we could experience a decrease in net income or a net loss.

In most cases, the interest rate indices and repricing terms of ARMs and RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs and our borrowings are not identical, thereby potentially creating an interest rate mismatch between our investments and our borrowings. While the historical spread between relevant short-term interest rate indices has been relatively stable, there have been periods when the spread between these indices was volatile. During periods of changing interest rates, these interest rate index mismatches could reduce our net income or produce a net loss, and adversely affect the level of our dividends and the market price of our common stock.

In addition, ARMs and RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs are typically subject to lifetime interest rate caps that limit the amount an interest rate can increase through the maturity of the ARMs. However, our borrowings under repurchase agreements typically are not subject to similar restrictions. Accordingly, in a period of rapidly increasing interest rates, the interest rates paid on our borrowings could increase without limitation while caps could limit the interest rates on these types of assets. This problem is magnified for ARMs and RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs that are not fully indexed. Further, some ARMs and RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs may be subject to periodic payment caps that result in a portion of the interest being deferred and added to the principal outstanding. As a result, we may receive less income on these types of assets than we need to pay interest on our related borrowings. These factors could reduce our net interest income and cause us to suffer a loss during periods of rising interest rates.

We may be subject to liability in connection with our residential mortgage loans for potential violations of consumer protection laws and regulations.

Federal consumer protection laws and regulations have been enacted and promulgated that are designed to regulate residential mortgage loan underwriting and originators’ lending processes, standards, and disclosures to borrowers. These laws and regulations include the CFPB's Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule ("ATR/QM Rule") under Regulation Z and Mortgage Servicing Rules under Regulation X and Regulation Z. In addition, there are various other federal, state, and local laws and regulations that are intended to discourage predatory lending practices by residential mortgage loan originators. For example, the federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 prohibits inclusion of certain provisions in residential mortgage loans that have mortgage rates or origination costs in excess of prescribed levels and requires that borrowers be given certain disclosures prior to origination. Some states have enacted, or may enact, similar laws or regulations, which in some cases may impose restrictions and requirements greater than those in place under federal laws and regulations. In addition, under the anti-predatory lending laws of some states, the origination of certain residential mortgage loans, including loans that are not classified as “high cost” loans under applicable law, must satisfy a net tangible benefits test with respect to the borrower. This test, as well as certain standards set forth in the ATR/QM Rule, may be highly subjective and open to interpretation. As a result, a court may determine that a residential mortgage loan did not meet the standard or test even if the originator reasonably believed such standard or test had been satisfied.

Mortgage loans also are subject to various other federal laws, including, among others:

the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, as amended, and Regulation B promulgated thereunder, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, race, color, sex, religion, marital status, national origin, receipt of public assistance or the exercise of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1968, as amended, in the extension of credit;

the Truth in Lending Act, as amended (“TILA”) and Regulation Z promulgated thereunder, which both require certain disclosures to the mortgagors regarding the terms of residential loans;

the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, as amended (“RESPA”) and Regulation X promulgated thereunder, which (among other things) prohibit the payment of referral fees for real estate settlement services (including mortgage lending and brokerage services) and regulate escrow accounts for taxes and insurance and billing inquiries made by mortgagors;

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, which, among other things, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation;

the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, as amended, and Regulation V promulgated thereunder, which regulates the use and reporting of information related to the borrower’s credit history;

the Consumer Financial Protection Act, enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, which (among other things) created the CFPB and gave it broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement jurisdiction over mortgage lenders and servicers, and proscribes any unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in connection with any consumer financial product or service;

the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 ("S.A.F.E. Act"), under which residential mortgage loan originators employed by financial institutions, must register with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, obtain a unique identifier from the registry, and maintain their registration in order to originate residential mortgage loans;

the Home Equity Loan Consumer Protection Act of 1988, which requires additional disclosures and limits changes that may be made to the loan documents without the mortgagor’s consent, and restricts a mortgagee’s ability to declare a default or to suspend or reduce a mortgagor’s credit limit to certain enumerated events;

the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, which preempts certain state usury laws;

the Dodd-Frank Act, including as described above;

the Service Members Civil Relief Act, as amended, which provides relief to borrowers who enter into active military service or who were on reserve status but are called to active duty after the origination of their mortgage loans;

the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which, among other requirements, imposes a duty to maintain confidentiality of consumer financial records; and

the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982, which preempts certain state lending laws which regulate alternative mortgage transactions.

Failure of us, residential mortgage loan originators, mortgage brokers or servicers to comply with these laws and regulations, could subject us to monetary penalties and defenses to foreclosure, including by recoupment or setoff of finance charges and fees collected, and could result in rescission of the affected residential mortgage loans, which could adversely impact our business and financial results.

GMFS is a seller/servicer approved to sell residential mortgage loans to Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)/ FHA, the USDA, and the VA and failure to maintain its status as an approved seller/servicer could harm our business.

GMFS is an approved Fannie Mae Seller-Servicer, Freddie Mac Seller-Servicer, Ginnie Mae issuer, HUD/ FHA mortgagee, USDA approved originator, and VA lender. As an approved seller/servicer, GMFS is required to conduct certain aspects of its operations in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines published by these entities. Failure

to maintain GMFS’s status as an approved seller/servicer would mean it would not be able to sell mortgage loans to these entities, could result in it being required to re-purchase loans previously sold to these entities, or could otherwise restrict our business and investment options and could harm our business and expose us to losses or other claims. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or these other entities may, in the future, require GMFS to hold additional capital or pledge additional cash or assets in order to maintain approved seller/servicer status, which, if required, would adversely impact our financial results.

GMFS operates within a highly regulated industry on a federal, state and local level and the business results of GMFS are significantly impacted by the laws and regulations to which GMFS is subject.

As a mortgage loan originator, GMFS is subject to extensive and comprehensive regulation under federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States. These laws and regulations significantly affect the way that GMFS conducts its business and restrict the scope of the existing business of GMFS and may limit the ability of GMFS to expand its product offerings or can make the cost to originate and service mortgage loans higher, which could impact our financial results.

The CFPB adopted changes to its Mortgage Servicing Rules in August 2016. These may increase the costs of loss mitigation and increase foreclosure timelines. Other new regulatory requirements or changes to existing requirements that the CFPB may promulgate could require changes in the business of GMFS, result in increased compliance costs and impair the profitability of such business. In addition, as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act’s expansion of the authority of state attorneys general to bring actions to enforce federal consumer protection legislation, GMFS could be subject to state lawsuits and enforcement actions, thereby further increasing the legal and compliance costs relating to GMFS. Amendments to the Mortgage Servicing Rules have increased the complexity of the loss mitigation and foreclosure processes and an inadvertent failure to comply with these rules could lead to losses in the value of the mortgage loans, be an event of default under various servicing agreements or subject GMFS to fines and penalties. The cumulative effect of these changes could result in a material impact on our earnings.

Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directed the CFPB to integrate certain mortgage loan disclosures under the TILA and RESPA, and in October 2015, these disclosure rules went into effect for newly originated residential mortgage loans. These rules include consumer disclosure document forms, processes for determining when disclosures must be updated and timelines for providing disclosure documents to borrowers. These rules have created the need for substantial system and process changes at GMFS and training for its employees. CFPB further amended disclosure requirements under Regulation Z in 2017 and 2018. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in penalties for disclosure violations under the TILA and RESPA.

GMFS could be subject to additional regulatory requirements or changes under the Dodd-Frank Act beyond those currently proposed, adopted or contemplated, particularly given the ongoing heightened regulatory environment in which financial institutions operate. The ongoing implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the implementation of the Mortgage Servicing Rules and the rules related to mortgage loan disclosures by the CFPB, could increase the regulatory compliance burden and associated costs of GMFS and place restrictions on the operations of GMFS, which could in turn adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Mortgage loan modification and refinance programs as well as future legislative action may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, the target assets in which we invest.

The U.S. Government, through the Federal Reserve, the FHA and the FDIC, commenced implementation of programs designed to provide homeowners with assistance in avoiding residential or commercial mortgage loan foreclosures, including the Home Affordable Modification Program, which provides homeowners with assistance in avoiding residential mortgage loan foreclosures, and the Home Affordable Refinance Program, which we refer to as HARP, which allows borrowers who are current on their mortgage payments to refinance and reduce their monthly mortgage payments at loan-to-value ratios without new mortgage insurance. The programs may involve, among other things, the modification of mortgage loans to reduce the principal amount of the loans or the rate of interest payable on the loans, or to extend the payment terms of the loans.

Loan modification and refinance programs may adversely affect the performance of residential mortgage loans, Agency RMBS and non-Agency RMBS. Especially with non-Agency RMBS, a significant number of loan modifications with respect to a given security, including those related to principal forgiveness and coupon reduction, could negatively

impact the realized yields and cash flows on such security. These loan modification programs, future legislative or regulatory actions, including possible amendments to the bankruptcy laws, which result in the modification of outstanding residential mortgage loans, as well as changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for refinancing mortgage loans with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae, may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, residential mortgage loans, non-Agency RMBS, Agency RMBS and our other target assets that we may purchase.

We may be affected by alleged or actual deficiencies in servicing and foreclosure practices of third parties, as well as related delays in the foreclosure process.

Allegations of deficiencies in servicing and foreclosure practices among several large sellers and servicers of residential mortgage loans that surfaced in 2010 raised various concerns relating to such practices, including the improper execution of the documents used in foreclosure proceedings, inadequate documentation of transfers and registrations of mortgages and assignments of loans, improper modifications of loans, violations of representations and warranties at the date of securitization, and failure to enforce put-backs.

As a result of alleged deficiencies in foreclosure practices, a number of servicers temporarily suspended foreclosure proceedings beginning in the second half of 2010 while they evaluated their foreclosure practices. In late 2010, a group of state attorneys general and state bank and mortgage regulators representing nearly all 50 states and the District of Columbia, along with the U.S. Department of Justice and HUD, began an investigation into foreclosure practices of banks and servicers. The investigations and lawsuits by several state attorneys general led to a settlement agreement in March 2012 with five of the nation’s largest banks, pursuant to which the banks agreed to pay more than $25 billion to settle claims relating to improper foreclosure practices. The settlement does not prohibit the states, the federal government, individuals or investors in RMBS from pursuing additional actions against the banks and servicers in the future.

The integrity of the servicing and foreclosure processes are critical to the value of the residential mortgage loans and the RMBS collateralized by residential mortgage loans in which we will invest, and our financial results could be adversely affected by deficiencies in the conduct of those processes. For example, delays in the foreclosure process that have resulted from investigations into improper servicing practices may adversely affect the values of, and our losses on, the residential mortgage loans and non-Agency RMBS we own or may originate or acquire. Foreclosure delays may also increase the administrative expenses of any securitization trusts that we may sponsor for non-Agency RMBS, thereby reducing the amount of funds available for distribution to our stockholders. In addition, the subordinate classes of securities issued by any such securitization trusts may continue to receive interest payments while the defaulted loans remain in the trusts, rather than absorbing the default losses. This may reduce the amount of credit support available for the senior classes we may own, thus possibly adversely affecting these securities.

In addition, in these circumstances, we may be obligated to fund any obligation of the servicer to make advances on behalf of a delinquent loan obligor. To the extent that there are significant amounts of advances that need to be funded in respect of loans where we own the servicing right, it could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.

While we believe that the sellers and servicers would be in violation of their servicing contracts to the extent that they have improperly serviced mortgage loans or improperly executed documents in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings, or do not comply with the terms of servicing contracts when deciding whether to apply principal reductions, it may be difficult, expensive and time consuming for us to enforce our contractual rights.

We will continue to monitor and review the issues raised by the alleged improper foreclosure practices. While we cannot predict exactly how the servicing and foreclosure matters or the resulting litigation or settlement agreements will affect our business, there can be no assurance that these matters will not have an adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

Our MSRs will expose us to significant risks.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac generally require mortgage servicers to be paid a minimum servicing fee that significantly exceeds the amount a servicer would charge in an arm’s-length transaction.

Our residential MSRs are recorded at fair value on our balance sheet based upon significant estimates and assumptions, with changes in fair value included in our consolidated results of operations. Such estimates and assumptions would

include, without limitation, estimates of future cash flows associated with our residential MSRs based upon assumptions involving interest rates as well as the prepayment rates, delinquencies and foreclosure rates of the underlying serviced mortgage loans.

The ultimate realization of the value of MSRs may be materially different than the fair values of such MSRs as may be reflected in our financial statements as of any particular date. The use of different estimates or assumptions in connection with the valuation of these assets could produce materially different fair values for such assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, there may be material uncertainty about the value of our MSRs.

Changes in interest rates are a key driver of the performance of MSRs. Historically, the value of MSRs has increased when interest rates rise and decreased when interest rates decline due to the effect those changes in interest rates have on prepayment estimates. We may pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, the type of assets held and other changing market conditions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us. To the extent the we do not utilize derivatives to hedge against changes in the fair value of MSRs, our balance sheet, consolidated results of operations and cash flows would be susceptible to significant volatility due to changes in the fair value of, or cash flows from, MSRs as interest rates change.

Prepayment speeds significantly affect excess mortgage servicing fees. Prepayment speed is the measurement of how quickly borrowers pay down the unpaid principal balance of their loans or how quickly loans are otherwise brought current, modified, liquidated or charged off. We will base the price we pay for MSRs and the rate of amortization of those assets on factors such as our projection of the cash flows from the related pool of mortgage loans. Our expectation of prepayment speeds will be a significant assumption underlying those cash flow projections. If prepayment speeds are significantly greater than expected, the carrying value of MSRs could exceed their estimated fair value. If the fair value of MSRs decreases, we would be required to record a non-cash charge, which would have a negative impact on our financial results. Furthermore, a significant increase in prepayment speeds could materially reduce the ultimate cash flows we receive from MSRs, and we could ultimately receive substantially less than what we paid for such assets.

Moreover, delinquency rates have a significant impact on the valuation of any excess mortgage servicing fees. An increase in delinquencies will generally result in lower revenue because typically we will only collect servicing fees from agencies or mortgage owners for performing loans. If delinquencies are significantly greater than we expect, the estimated fair value of the MSRs could be diminished. When the estimated fair value of MSRs is reduced, we could suffer a loss, which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

Furthermore, MSRs are subject to numerous U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations and may be subject to various judicial and administrative decisions imposing various requirements and restrictions on our business. Our failure to comply, or the failure of the servicer to comply, with the laws, rules or regulations to which we or the servicer are subject by virtue of ownership of MSRs, whether actual or alleged, could expose us to fines, penalties or potential litigation liabilities, including costs, settlements and judgments, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, consolidated results of operations or cash flows.

GMFS originates residential mortgage loans which have risks of losses due to mortgage loan defaults or fraud.

GMFS currently originates loans that are eligible to be purchased, guaranteed or insured by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA and USDA through retail, correspondent and broker channels. GMFS may originate loans that are not guaranteed or insured by such agencies or channels, and the origination of these residential mortgage loans have risks of losses due to mortgage loan defaults or fraud. The ability of borrowers to make timely principal and interest payments could be adversely affected by changes in their personal circumstances, a rise in interest rates, a recession, declining real estate property values or other economic events, resulting in losses. Moreover, if a borrower defaults on a mortgage loan that GMFS or we own and if the liquidation proceeds from the sale of the property do not cover the loan amount and the legal, broker and selling costs, GMFS or we would experience a loss. We could experience losses if we fail to detect fraud, where a borrower or lending partner has misrepresented its financial situation or purpose for obtaining the loan, or an appraisal misrepresented the value of the property collateralizing its loan.

Currently, and in the future, some of the loans we may originate may be insured in part by mortgage insurers or financial guarantors. Mortgage insurance protects the lender or other holder of a loan up to a specified amount, in the event

the borrower defaults on the loan. Mortgage insurance is generally obtained only when the principal amount of the loan at the time of origination is greater than 80% of the value of the property (loan-to-value), although it may not always be obtained in these circumstances. Any inability of the mortgage insurers to pay in full the insured portion of the loans that we hold would adversely affect the value of our loans, which could increase our credit risk, reduce our cash flows, or otherwise adversely affect our business.

We will hold and may originate or acquire additional residential mortgage loans and non-agency RMBS collateralized by subprime mortgage loans, which are subject to increased risks.

We, through GMFS and other subsidiaries, will hold and may originate or acquire additional subprime residential mortgage loans and non-agency RMBS backed by collateral pools of subprime mortgage loans that have been originated using underwriting standards that are less restrictive than those used in underwriting other higher quality mortgage loans. These lower standards include mortgage loans made to borrowers having imperfect or impaired credit histories, mortgage loans where the amount of the loan at origination is 80% or more of the value of the mortgage property, mortgage loans made to borrowers with low credit scores, mortgage loans made to borrowers who have other debt that represents a large portion of their income and mortgage loans made to borrowers whose income is not required to be disclosed or verified. Due to economic conditions, including lower home prices, as well as aggressive lending practices, subprime mortgage loans have in recent years experienced increased rates of delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss, and they are likely to continue to experience delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss rates that are higher, and that may be substantially higher, than those experienced by mortgage loans underwritten in a more traditional manner. Thus, because of the higher delinquency rates and losses associated with subprime mortgage loans, the performance of subprime mortgage loans and non-agency RMBS backed by subprime mortgage loans that we hold and may originate or acquire could be correspondingly adversely affected, which could adversely impact our consolidated results of operations, financial condition and business.

Deficiencies in the underwriting of newly originated residential mortgage loans may result in an increase in the severity of losses on our residential mortgage loans.

The underwriting of newly originated residential mortgage loans is different than the underwriting and investment process related to seasoned mortgage loans and RMBS, which focuses, in part, on performance history.

Prior to originating or acquiring residential mortgage loans or other assets, GMFS or other subsidiaries may undertake underwriting and due diligence efforts with respect to various aspects of the loan or asset. When underwriting or conducting due diligence, GMFS or other subsidiaries rely on available resources and data, which may be limited, and on investigations by third parties.

The mortgage loan originator may also only conduct due diligence on a sample of a pool of loans or assets it is acquiring and assume that the sample is representative of the entire pool. These underwriting and due diligence efforts may not reveal matters that could lead to losses. If the underwriting process is not robust enough or if we do not conduct adequate due diligence, or the scope of the underwriting or due diligence is limited, we may incur losses.

Although mortgage originators generally underwrite mortgage loans in accordance with their pre-determined loan underwriting guidelines, from time to time and in the ordinary course of business, originators may make exceptions to these guidelines. On a case-by-case basis, underwriters may determine that a prospective borrower that does not strictly qualify under the underwriting guidelines warrants an underwriting exception, based upon compensating factors. Compensating factors may include a lower LTV, a higher debt coverage ratio, experience as an owner or investor, higher borrower net worth or liquidity, stable employment, longer length of time in business and length of time owning the property. Loans originated with exceptions may result in a higher number of delinquencies and defaults.

Losses could occur due to a counterparty that sold loans to GMFS or other Company subsidiaries refusing to or being unable to repurchase that loan or pay damages related to breaches of representations made by the seller.

Losses could occur due to a counterparty that sold loans or other assets to GMFS or other Company subsidiaries refusing to or being unable to (e.g., due to its financial condition) repurchase loans or pay damages if it is determined subsequent to purchase that one or more of the representations or warranties made to GMFS or other Company subsidiaries in connection with the sale was inaccurate.

Even if GMFS or another Company subsidiary obtains representations and warranties from the loan seller counterparties they may not parallel the representations and warranties GMFS or other Company subsidiaries make to subsequent purchasers of the loans or may otherwise not protect the seller from losses, including, for example, due to the counterparty being insolvent or otherwise unable to make payments arising out of damages for a breach of representation or warranty. Furthermore, to the extent the counterparties from which loans were acquired have breached their representations and warranties, such breaches may adversely impact our business relationship with those counterparties, including by reducing the volume of business our subsidiaries conduct with those counterparties, which could negatively impact their ability to acquire loans and the larger mortgage origination business. To the extent our Company subsidiaries have significant exposure to representations and warranties made to them by one or more counterparties, we may determine, as a matter of risk management, to reduce or discontinue loan acquisitions from those counterparties, which could reduce the volume of mortgage loans available for acquisition and negatively impact our business and financial results.

The diminished level of Freddie Mac participation in, and other changes in the role of Freddie Mac in, the mortgage market may adversely affect our business.

In September 2008, FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorship and undertook the extraordinary dual role of supervisor and conservator. Now in their ninth year, FHFA’s conservatorships are of unprecedented scope, scale, and complexity. While in conservatorship, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have required $187.5 billion in financial investment from the Treasury to avert insolvency, and, through the start of 2017, have paid to Treasury over $255 billion in dividends. Despite their high leverage, lack of capital, conservatorship status, and uncertain future, the combined Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have grown in size during conservatorship and, according to FHFA, their combined market share of newly issued MBS is more than 65%. In mid-2017, their combined total assets were approximately $5.3 trillion and their combined debt exceeded $5 trillion. Although market conditions have improved and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have returned to profitability, their ability to sustain profitability in the future cannot be assured for a number of reasons: the winding down of their investment portfolios and reduction in net interest income; the level of guarantee fees they will be able to charge and keep; the future performance of their business segments; and the significant uncertainties involving key market drivers such as mortgage rates, homes prices, and credit standards. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will also be required to eliminate their capital cushion by the end of 2018 and in any quarter in which they suffer a loss, will have to once again draw funds from Treasury to cover such losses. To address these challenges, a number of reform proposals have been introduced and suggested, but none have passed a congressional vote.

If Freddie Mac participation in the mortgage market were reduced or eliminated, or its structures were to change, our ability to originate and service loans under the Freddie Mac program could be adversely affected. These developments could also materially and adversely impact the pricing of our potential future Freddie Mac loan and ABS portfolio. Additionally, the current support provided by the Treasury to Freddie Mac, and any additional support it may provide in the future, could have the effect of lowering the interest rates we expect to receive from such assets, thereby tightening the spread between the interest we earn on these assets and the cost of financing these assets. Future legislation affecting Freddie Mac may create market uncertainty and have the effect of reducing the actual or perceived credit quality of Freddie Mac and the securities issued or guaranteed by it. As a result, such laws could increase the risk of loss on our investments related to the Freddie Mac program. It also is possible that such laws could adversely impact the market for such assets and the spreads at which they trade.

Risks Related to Our SBA Business

We may encounter risks associated with originating or acquiring SBA loans.

We will originate SBA loans and sell the guaranteed portion of such SBA loans into the secondary market. These sales may result in collecting cash premiums, creating a stream of future servicing spread or both. There can be no

assurance that we will originate these loans, that a secondary market will exist or that we will realize premiums upon the sale of the guaranteed portion of these loans.

We may acquire SBA loans or originate SBA loans and sell the guaranteed portion of such SBA loans and retain the credit risk on the non-guaranteed portion of such loans. We would then expect to share pro-rata with the SBA in any recoveries. In the event of default on an SBA loan, our pursuit of remedies against a borrower would be subject to SBA rules and in some instances SBA approval. If the SBA establishes that a loss on an SBA guaranteed loan is attributable to significant technical deficiencies in the manner in which the loan was originated, funded or serviced by us, the SBA may seek recovery of the principal loss related to the deficiency from us. With respect to the guaranteed portion of SBA loans that may be sold by us, the SBA would first honor its guarantee and then may seek compensation from us in the event that a loss is deemed to be attributable to technical deficiencies. There can be no assurance that we will not experience a loss due to significant deficiencies with our underwriting or servicing of SBA loans.

In certain instances, including liquidation or charge-off of an SBA guaranteed loan, we may have a receivable for the SBA’s guaranteed portion of legal fees, operating expenses, property taxes paid etc. related to the loan or the collateral (upon foreclosure). While we may believe expenses incurred were justified and necessary for the care and preservation of the collateral and within the established rules of the SBA, there can be no assurance that the SBA will reimburse us. In addition, obtaining reimbursement from the SBA may be a time consuming and lengthy process and the SBA may seek compensation from us related to reimbursement of expenses that it does not believe were necessary for the care and preservation of a loan or its collateral and no assurance can be given that the SBA will not decline to reimburse us for our portion of material expenses.

A government shutdown or curtailment of the government-guaranteed loan programs could cut off an important segment of our business, and may adversely affect our SBA loan program acquisitions and originations and results of operations.

Although the program has been in existence since 1953, there can be no assurance that the federal government will maintain the SBA program, or that it will continue to guarantee loans at current levels. If we cannot acquire, make or sell government-guaranteed loans, we may generate less interest income, fewer origination fees, and our ability to generate gains on sale of loans may decrease. From time-to-time, the government agencies that guarantee these loans reach their internally budgeted limits and cease to guarantee loans for a stated time period. In addition, these agencies may change their rules for loans. Also, Congress may adopt legislation that could have the effect of discontinuing or changing the programs. Non-governmental programs could replace government programs for some borrowers, but the terms might not be equally acceptable. If these changes occur, the volume of loans to small business and industrial borrowers of the types that now qualify for government-guaranteed loans could decline, as could the profitability of these loans.

Our lending business could be materially and adversely affected by circumstances or events limiting the availability of funds for SBA loan programs. A government shutdown occurred in October 2013 and December 2018 that affected the ability of entities to originate SBA loans because Congress failed to approve a budget which in turn eliminated the availability of funds for these programs. A government shutdown could occur again, which may affect our ability to originate government guaranteed loans and to sell the government guaranteed portions of those loans in the secondary market. A government shutdown may adversely affect our SBA loan program acquisitions and originations and our results of operations.

Risks Related to Financing and Hedging

We use leverage as part of our investment strategy but we do not have a formal policy limiting the amount of debt we may incur. Our board of directors may change our leverage policy without stockholder consent.

We will use prudent leverage to increase potential returns to our stockholders. As of December 31, 2019, our committed and outstanding financing arrangements included:


			December 31, 2019
(in thousands)	Commitment		Carrying Value		Available		Maturity Dates
Secured borrowings (warehouse credit facilities and borrowings under repurchase agreements)	$	2,548,048	$	1,189,392	$	1,358,656	2020 - 2023
Senior secured notes, net		179,289		179,289		-	2022
Corporate bonds, net		149,986		149,986		-	2021 - 2026
Convertible bonds, net		111,040

	Page

PART I
Item 1. Business	5
Item 1A. Risk Factors	19
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments	70
Item 2. Properties	70
Item 3. Legal Proceedings	70
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures	70
PART II	71
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	71
Item 6. Selected Financial Data	73
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	74
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	107
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	110
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	179
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures	179
Item 9B. Other Information	179
PART III	180
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	180
Item 11. Executive Compensation	180
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	180
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	180
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services	180
PART IV	181
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	181
Item 16. Form 10-K Summary	184
SIGNATURES	185