Starwood Property Trust (STWD) 10-K2023 FY Annual report

The following table sets forth the amount of each category of investments we owned across various property types within our Commercial and Residential Lending Segment as of December 31, 2023 and 2022 (dollars in thousands):

Our Manager has significant discretion as to the implementation of our investment and operating policies and strategies. Accordingly, we believe that our success depends to a material extent upon the efforts, experience, diligence, skill and network of business contacts of the officers and key personnel of our Manager. The officers and key personnel of our Manager evaluate, negotiate, close and monitor a substantial portion of our investments; therefore, our success depends on their continued service. The departure of any of the officers or key personnel of our Manager could have a material adverse effect on our performance.

We offer no assurance that our Manager will remain our investment manager or that we will continue to have access to our Manager’s officers and key personnel. The terms of our management agreement with our Manager and the investment advisory agreement between our Manager and Starwood Capital Group Management, LLC are automatically renewed on an annual basis; provided, however, that our Manager may terminate the management agreement annually upon 180 days prior notice. If the management agreement and the investment advisory agreement are terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage us, we may not be able to continue to execute our business plan.

We are subject to conflicts of interest arising out of our relationship with Starwood Capital Group, including our Manager. Specifically, Mr. Sternlicht, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey G. Dishner, one of our other directors, and certain of our executive officers are executives of Starwood Capital Group.

Our Manager and executive officers may have conflicts between their duties to us and their duties to, and interests in, Starwood Capital Group and its other investment funds. From time to time, one or more private investment funds sponsored by Starwood Capital Group (collectively, “Starwood Private Real Estate Funds”) may be subject to exclusivity provisions that require all or a portion of investment opportunities related to real estate to be allocated to such Starwood Private Real Estate Funds rather than to us. Subject to the provisions of the co-investment and allocation agreement as described in the next paragraph, there can be no assurance that future Starwood Private Real Estate Funds would not be subject to such exclusivity requirements and, as a result, they may acquire investment opportunities that would not be available to us. Our independent directors do not approve each co-investment made by the Starwood Private Real Estate Funds and us unless the amount of capital we invest in the proposed co-investment otherwise requires the review and approval of our independent directors pursuant to our investment guidelines. Pursuant to the exclusivity provisions of the Starwood Private Real Estate Funds, our investment strategy may not include either (i) equity interests in real estate or (ii) “near-to-medium-term loan to own” investments, in each case (of both (i) and (ii)) if such investments are expected, at the time such investment is made, to produce an internal rate of return (“IRR”) within the target return threshold specified in the governing documents of one or more Starwood Private Real Estate Funds. Therefore, our board of directors does not have the flexibility to expand our investment strategy to include equity interests in real estate or “near-term loan to own” investments with such an IRR expectation.

Our Manager, Starwood Capital Group and their respective affiliates may sponsor or manage one or more publicly traded investment vehicles, public reporting vehicles or funds that invest generally in real estate assets but not primarily in our “target assets” (as defined in our co-investment and allocation agreement) or one or more publicly traded investment vehicles, public reporting vehicles, or funds that do invest in some of our target assets (a “potential competing vehicle”). Our Manager and Starwood Capital Group have also agreed in our co-investment and allocation agreement that for so long as the management agreement is in effect and our Manager and Starwood Capital Group are under common control, no entity controlled by Starwood Capital Group will sponsor or manage a potential competing vehicle unless Starwood Capital Group adopts a policy that either (i) provides for the fair and equitable allocation of investment opportunities in our “target assets” (as defined in our co-investment and allocation agreement) among all such vehicles and us or (ii) provides us the right to co-invest with respect to any “target assets” (as defined in our co-investment and allocation agreement) with such vehicles, in each case subject to the suitability of each investment opportunity for the particular vehicle and us and each such vehicle’s and our availability of cash for investment. To the extent that there is overlap between our investment program and that of a Starwood Private Real Estate Fund, a fair and equitable allocation policy may involve a co-investment between us and such Starwood Private Real Estate Fund or a chronological rotation between us and such Starwood Private Real Estate Fund. Although Starwood Capital Group has adopted such an investment allocation policy, Starwood Capital Group has some discretion as to

We pay our Manager substantial base management fees regardless of the performance of our portfolio. Our Manager’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 investments 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.

Excluding our operating subsidiaries, we do not have any employees except for Rina Paniry, our Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer, whom Starwood Capital Group has seconded to us exclusively. Ms. Paniry is also an employee of other entities affiliated with our Manager and, as a result, is subject to potential conflicts of interest in service as our employee and as an employee of such entities.

Certain of our executive officers and two of our directors are executives of Starwood Capital Group. Our management agreement with our Manager was negotiated between related parties and its terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

Termination of the management agreement with our Manager without cause is difficult and costly. Our independent directors will review our Manager’s performance and the management fees annually and the management agreement may be terminated annually upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors based upon: (i) our Manager’s unsatisfactory performance that is materially detrimental to us or (ii) a determination that the management fees payable to our Manager are not fair, subject to our Manager’s right to prevent termination based on unfair fees by accepting a reduction of management fees agreed to by at least two-thirds of our independent directors. Our Manager will be provided 180 days prior notice of any such a termination. Additionally, upon such a termination, the management agreement provides that we will pay our Manager a termination fee equal to three times the sum of the average annual base management fee and incentive fee received by our Manager during the prior 24-month period before such termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter. These provisions may increase the cost to us of terminating the management agreement and adversely affect our ability to terminate our Manager without cause.

Our Manager may terminate the management agreement annually upon 180 days prior notice. If the management agreement is terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage us, we may not be able to continue to execute our business plan.

Pursuant to the management agreement, our Manager does not assume any responsibility other than to render the services called for thereunder and is not responsible for any action of our board of directors in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. Our Manager maintains a contractual, as opposed to a fiduciary, relationship with us. Under the terms of the management agreement, our Manager, its officers, members, personnel, any person controlling or controlled by our Manager and any person providing sub-advisory services to our Manager (the “indemnified parties”) will not be liable to us, any subsidiary of ours, our directors, our stockholders or any subsidiary’s stockholders or partners for acts or omissions performed in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement, except because of acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of their duties under the management agreement. In addition, we have agreed to indemnify the indemnified parties with respect to all expenses, losses, damages, liabilities, demands, charges and claims arising from acts or omissions of our Manager not constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of duties, performed in good faith in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement.

Our Manager is entitled to receive incentive compensation based upon our achievement of targeted levels of Distributable Earnings (which is referred to as “Core Earnings” in our management agreement). In evaluating investments and

Distributable Earnings is not a measure calculated in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and is defined within Item 7 – Non-GAAP Financial Measures in this Form 10-K.

In order to avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest with our Manager, Starwood Capital Group, any of their affiliates or any investment vehicle sponsored or managed by Starwood Capital Group or any of its affiliates, which we refer to as the Starwood parties, we have adopted a conflicts of interest policy to specifically address some of the conflicts relating to our investment opportunities. Although under this policy the approval of a majority of our independent directors is required to approve (i) any purchase of our assets by any of the Starwood parties and (ii) any purchase by us of any assets of any of the Starwood parties, this policy may not be adequate to address all of the conflicts that may arise or may not address such conflicts in a manner that results in the allocation of a particular investment opportunity to us or is otherwise favorable to us. In addition, the Starwood Private Real Estate Funds currently, and additional competing vehicles may in the future, participate in some of our investments, possibly at a more senior level in the capital structure of the underlying borrower and related real estate than our investment. Our interests in such investments may also conflict with the interests of these entities in the event of a default or restructuring of the investment. Participating investments will not be the result of arm’s length negotiations and will involve potential conflicts between our interests and those of the other participating entities in obtaining favorable terms. Since certain of our executives are also executives of Starwood Capital Group, the same personnel may determine the price and terms for the investments for both us and these entities and any procedural protections, such as obtaining market prices or other reliable indicators of fair value, may not prevent the consideration we pay for these investments from exceeding their fair value or ensure that we receive terms for a particular investment opportunity that are as favorable as those available from an independent third party.

Our credit loss provision is evaluated on a quarterly basis. The determination of such provision 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 projected cash flow from the collateral securing our loans, debt structure, including the availability of reserves and recourse guarantees, likelihood of repayment in full at the maturity of a loan, potential for refinancing and expected market discount rates for varying property types, 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.

Accounting Standards Update 2016-13, “Financial Instruments—Credit Losses, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments (Topic 326),” which replaced the “incurred loss” model for recognizing credit losses with an “expected loss” model referred to as the Current Expected Credit Loss model (“CECL”) became effective for us on January 1, 2020. Under the CECL model, we are required to provide allowances for credit losses on certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held-for-investment and held-to-maturity debt securities, including related future funding commitments and accrued interest receivable. The measurement of expected credit losses is 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 takes 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 previously required under GAAP, which delayed recognition until it was probable a loss had been incurred. Accordingly, the adoption of the CECL model has materially affected, and will continue to materially affect, how we determine our credit loss provision and required us, and could continue to require us, to significantly increase our allowance and recognize provisions for credit losses earlier in the lending cycle. Moreover, the CECL model creates more volatility in the level of our credit loss provisions. If we are required to materially increase our future level of credit loss allowances for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

We are generally required to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our taxable income each year for us to qualify as a REIT under the Code, which requirement we currently intend to satisfy through quarterly distributions of all or substantially all of our REIT taxable income in such year, subject to certain adjustments. We have not established a minimum distribution payment level, and our ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors contained in this Form 10-K. Although we have made, and anticipate continuing to make, quarterly distributions to our stockholders, our board of directors has the sole discretion to determine the timing, form and amount of any future distributions to our stockholders, and such determination will depend on our earnings, our financial condition, debt covenants, maintenance of our REIT qualification and other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time. We believe that a change in any one of the following factors could adversely affect our results of operations and impair our ability to continue to pay distributions to our stockholders:

As a result, distributions to our stockholders in the future may not continue or the level of any future distributions we do make to our stockholders may not achieve a market yield or increase or even be maintained over time, any of which could materially and adversely affect our stockholders’ return on investment.

In addition, distributions that we make to our stockholders are generally taxable to our stockholders as ordinary income. However, a portion of our distributions may be designated by us as long-term capital gains to the extent that they are attributable to capital gain income recognized by us or may constitute a return of capital to the extent that they exceed our earnings and profits as determined for tax purposes. A return of capital is not taxable, but has the effect of reducing the basis of a stockholder’s investment in our common stock.

Our financing sources currently include our credit agreements, our master repurchase agreements, our CLOs, our single asset securitization (“SASB”), our convertible senior notes, our senior notes, our mortgage debt on certain investment properties and common stock and debt offerings. Subject to market conditions and availability, we may seek additional sources

Our access to additional sources of financing will depend upon a number of factors, over which we have little or no control, including:

A dislocation and/or weakness in the capital and credit markets could adversely affect one or more private lenders and could cause one or more of our private lenders to be unwilling or unable to provide us with financing or to increase the costs of that financing. In addition, if regulatory capital requirements imposed on our private lenders change, they may be required to limit, or increase the cost of, financing they provide to us. In general, this could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity or require us to sell assets at an inopportune time or price.

To the extent structured financing arrangements are unavailable, we may have to rely more heavily on additional equity issuances, which may be dilutive to our stockholders, or on less efficient forms of debt financing that require a larger portion of our cash flow from operations, thereby reducing funds available for our operations, future business opportunities, cash distributions to our stockholders and other purposes. We cannot assure you that we will have access to such equity or debt capital on favorable terms (including, without limitation, cost and term) at the desired times, or at all, which may cause us to curtail our asset acquisition activities and/or dispose of assets, which could negatively affect our results of operations.

We currently have a significant amount of indebtedness outstanding. As of December 31, 2023, our total consolidated indebtedness was approximately $19.7 billion (excluding accounts payable, accrued expenses, other liabilities, VIE liabilities and unfunded commitments). Our outstanding indebtedness currently includes our credit agreements, our repurchase agreements, our CLOs, our SASB, our convertible senior notes, our senior notes and mortgage debt on certain investment properties. Subject to market conditions and availability, we may incur additional debt through bank credit facilities (including term loans and revolving facilities), repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities, structured financing arrangements, public and private debt issuances and derivative instruments, in addition to transaction or asset-specific funding arrangements. The percentage of leverage we employ varies depending on our available capital, our ability to obtain and access financing arrangements with lenders and the lenders’ and rating agencies’ estimate of the stability of our investment portfolio’s cash flow. Our governing documents contain no limitation on the amount of debt we may incur. We may significantly increase the amount of leverage we utilize at any time without approval of our board of directors. However, our secured debt agreements contain customary affirmative and negative covenants, including financial covenants, that in some cases restrict our total leverage (as defined therein). Moreover, the respective indentures governing our senior notes contain covenants that, subject to a number of exceptions and adjustments, among other things,  limit our ability to incur additional indebtedness and require that we maintain total unencumbered assets (as defined therein) of not less than 120% of the aggregate principal amount of our outstanding unsecured indebtedness (as defined therein). In addition, we may leverage individual assets at substantially higher levels. Incurring substantial debt subjects us to many risks that, if realized, would materially and adversely affect us, including the risk that:

Our primary interest rate exposures relate to the following:

Our operating results depend in large part on differences between the income from our assets, net of credit losses, and our financing costs. We anticipate that for any period during which our assets are not match-funded, the income from such assets will respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Consequently, changes in interest rates may significantly influence our net income. Interest rate fluctuations resulting in our interest expense exceeding interest income would result in operating losses for us.

We utilize warehouse facilities pursuant to which we accumulate mortgage loans in anticipation of a securitization financing, which assets are pledged as collateral for such facilities until the securitization transaction is consummated. In order to borrow funds to acquire assets under any additional warehouse facilities, we expect that our lenders thereunder would have the right to review the potential assets for which we are seeking financing. We may be unable to obtain the consent of a lender to acquire assets that we believe would be beneficial to us and we may be unable to obtain alternate financing for such assets. In addition, a securitization transaction may not be consummated with respect to the assets being warehoused. If the securitization is not consummated, the lender could liquidate the warehoused collateral and we would then have to pay any amount by which the original purchase price of the collateral assets exceeds its sale price, subject to negotiated caps, if any, on our exposure. In addition, regardless of whether the securitization is consummated, if any of the warehoused collateral is sold before the consummation, we would have to bear any resulting loss on the sale. We may not be able to obtain additional warehouse facilities on favorable terms, or at all.

We utilize repurchase agreements to finance certain investments. In order for us to borrow funds under a repurchase agreement, our lender must have the right to review the potential assets for which we are seeking financing and approve such assets in its sole discretion. Accordingly, we may be unable to obtain the consent of a lender to finance an investment and alternate sources of financing for such asset may not exist.

We are subject to various restrictive covenants contained in our existing financing arrangements and may become subject to additional covenants in connection with future financings. Our credit agreements contain covenants that restrict our ability to incur additional debt or liens, make certain investments or acquisitions, merge, consolidate or transfer or dispose of substantially all of our assets or otherwise dispose of property and assets, pay dividends and make certain other restricted payments, change the nature of our business or enter into transactions with affiliates. Our credit agreements, as well as our master repurchase agreements, each requires us to maintain compliance with various financial covenants, including, as applicable, a minimum tangible net worth and cash liquidity, and specified financial ratios, such as total debt to total assets and EBITDA to fixed charges or loan-to-value ratios. In addition, the respective indentures governing our respective senior notes contain covenants that, subject to a number of exceptions, adjustments and, in certain circumstances, termination provisions, among other things: limit our ability to incur additional indebtedness; require that we maintain total unencumbered assets (as defined therein) of not less than 120% of the aggregate principal amount of our outstanding unsecured indebtedness (as defined therein); and impose certain requirements in order for us to merge or consolidate with another person.

These covenants may limit our flexibility to pursue certain investments or incur additional debt. If we fail to meet or satisfy any of these covenants, we would be in default under these agreements and our indebtedness could be declared due and payable. In addition, our lenders could terminate their commitments, require the posting of additional collateral and enforce their interests against existing collateral. We may also be subject to cross-default and acceleration rights and, with respect to collateralized debt, the posting of additional collateral and foreclosure rights upon default. Further, such limitations on our liquidity could also make it difficult for us to satisfy the distribution requirements necessary to maintain our status as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Our credit agreements and master repurchase agreements also involve the risk that the market value of the loans pledged or sold by us to the repurchase agreement counterparty or provider of the bank credit facility may decline in value, in which case the lender may require us to provide additional collateral or to repay all or a portion of the funds advanced. We may not have the funds available to repay our debt at that time, which would likely result in defaults unless we are able to raise the funds from alternative sources, which we may not be able to achieve on favorable terms or at all. Posting additional collateral would reduce our liquidity and limit our ability to leverage our assets. If we cannot meet these requirements, the lender could accelerate our indebtedness, increase the interest rate on advanced funds and terminate our ability to borrow funds from them, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and ability to continue to implement our business plan. In addition, in the event that the lender files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, our loans may become subject to bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, thus depriving us, at least temporarily, of the benefit of these assets. Such an event could restrict our access to bank credit facilities and increase our cost of capital.

If financial institutions with whom we seek to finance our investments require that one or more of our Manager’s executives continue to serve in such capacity and if one or more of our Manager’s executives are no longer employed by our Manager, it may constitute an event of default and the financial institution providing the arrangement may have acceleration rights with respect to outstanding borrowings and termination rights with respect to our ability to finance our future investments with that institution. If we are unable to obtain financing for our accelerated borrowings and for our future investments under such circumstances, we could be materially and adversely affected.

We utilize non-recourse securitizations of our investments in mortgage loans to the extent consistent with the maintenance of our REIT qualification and exemption from the Investment Company Act in order to generate cash for funding new investments and/or to leverage existing assets. In most instances, this involves us transferring our loans to a special purpose securitization entity in exchange for cash. In some sale transactions, we also retain a subordinated interest in the loans sold. The securitization of our portfolio investments might magnify our exposure to losses on those portfolio investments because the subordinated interest we retain in the loans sold would be subordinate to the senior interest in the loans sold, and we would, therefore, absorb all of the losses sustained with respect to a loan sold before the owners of the senior interest

As of December 31, 2023, we had $380.8 million in principal amount of convertible senior notes outstanding. If a fundamental change within the meaning of our outstanding convertible senior notes occurs, holders of those convertible senior notes will have the right to require us to purchase for cash any or all of their notes. The fundamental change purchase price will equal 100% of the principal amount of the convertible senior notes to be purchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon. In addition, upon conversion of the convertible senior notes, unless we elect to settle the conversion entirely in shares of our common stock, we will be required to make cash payments in respect of the convertible senior notes being converted. However, we may not have sufficient funds at the time we are required to purchase the convertible senior notes surrendered therefor or to make cash payments on the notes being converted, and we may not be able to arrange necessary financing on acceptable terms, if at all. If we were unable to raise necessary funding on acceptable terms or at all, our operating results and financial position could be negatively impacted if we were required to repurchase the notes or to pay cash upon conversion.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, part of our investment strategy involves entering into hedging transactions that require us to fund cash payments in certain circumstances (such as the early termination of the hedging instrument caused by an event of default or other early termination event, or the decision by a counterparty to request margin securities it is contractually owed under the terms of the hedging instrument). The amount due would be equal to the unrealized loss of the open swap positions with the respective counterparty and could also include other fees and charges. These economic losses will be reflected in our results of operations, and our ability to fund these obligations will depend on the liquidity of our assets and access to capital at the time, and the need to fund these obligations could adversely impact our financial condition.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in interest and foreign currency rates. Our hedging activity varies in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, exchange rates, the types of assets held and other changing market conditions. Hedging may fail to protect us or could adversely affect us because, among other things:

Any hedging activity in which we engage may materially and adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows. Therefore, while we may enter into such transactions seeking to reduce risks, unanticipated changes in interest rates, credit spreads or currencies may result in poorer overall investment performance than if we had not engaged in any such hedging transactions. In addition, the degree of correlation between price movements of the instruments used in a hedging strategy and price movements in the portfolio positions or liabilities being hedged may vary materially. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, we may not seek to establish a perfect correlation between such hedging instruments and the portfolio positions or liabilities being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss.

The cost of using hedging instruments increases as the period covered by the instrument increases and during periods of rising and volatile interest rates. In addition, some hedging instruments involve risk because they often are not traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, in many cases, there are no requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and positions. Furthermore, the enforceability of agreements underlying hedging transactions may depend on compliance with applicable securities, commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction that is not cleared on a regulated centralized clearing house will most likely result in its default. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to cover our commitments, if any, at the then current market price. Although generally we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging positions, it may not always be possible to dispose of or close out a hedging position without the consent of the hedging counterparty and we may not be able to enter into an offsetting contract in order to cover our risk. We cannot assure you that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and we may be required to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in significant losses.

We record derivative and hedging transactions in accordance with GAAP. Under these standards, we may fail to qualify for, or choose not to elect, hedge accounting treatment for a number of reasons, including if we use instruments that do not meet the definition of a derivative (such as short sales), we fail to satisfy hedge documentation and hedge effectiveness assessment requirements or our instruments are not highly effective. If we fail to qualify for, or choose not to elect, hedge accounting treatment, our operating results may be volatile because changes in the fair value of the derivatives that we enter into may not be offset by a change in the fair value of the related hedged transaction or item.

The lack of liquidity of our investments in real estate loans and investments, other than certain of our investments in MBS, may make it difficult for us to sell such investments if the need or desire arises. Many of the securities we purchase are not registered under the relevant securities laws, resulting in a prohibition against their transfer, sale, pledge or their disposition, except in a transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of, or otherwise in accordance with, those laws. In addition, certain investments such as B-Notes, mezzanine loans and bridge and other loans are also particularly illiquid investments due to their short life, their potential unsuitability for securitization and/or the greater difficulty of recovery in the event of a borrower default. As a result, many of our current investments are, and our future investments will be, illiquid and if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we have previously recorded our investments. Further, we may face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate an investment in a business entity to the extent that we or our Manager has or could be attributed with material non-public information regarding such business entity. 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.

In connection with certain contributions of properties to our subsidiary, SPT Dolphin Intermediate LLC (“SPT Dolphin”), we have entered into a tax protection agreement with the contributors of such properties, pursuant to which SPT Dolphin is generally restricted from transferring the applicable properties during a specified period unless such contributors are indemnified against the tax liability on their shares of any gain recognized in such transfers (as well as any such tax liability arising due to SPT Dolphin not maintaining a specified level of nonrecourse debt on those properties during the specified period).  This tax protection agreement, and any additional tax protection agreements that a subsidiary of ours may enter into in the future, will limit our flexibility to sell or otherwise dispose of, or to reduce the amount of indebtedness encumbering, the relevant properties even if it would otherwise be economically advantageous to us to do so.

While we seek to diversify our portfolio of investments, we are not required to observe specific diversification criteria, except as may be set forth in the investment guidelines adopted by our board of directors. Therefore, our investments in our target 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. To the extent that our portfolio is concentrated in any one region or type of asset, downturns relating generally to such region or type of asset may result in defaults on a number of our investments within a short time period, which may reduce our net income and the value of our common stock and accordingly reduce our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the real estate markets, the financial markets and the economy generally. Concerns about the real estate market, inflation, energy costs, geopolitical issues and the availability and cost of credit have contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy and markets going forward, any of which could adversely affect our business and financial results.

Remote and hybrid working arrangements, flexible work schedules, open workplaces, videoconferencing, and teleconferencing are becoming more common, and these trends accelerated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. These practices have and may continue to enable businesses to reduce their office space requirements. There is also an increasing trend among some businesses to utilize shared office spaces and co-working spaces. These trends have contributed to decreased overall demand for office space and, in turn, have place downward pressure on occupancy, rental rates and property valuations, each of which has and may continue to adversely affect our business, results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

We make preferred equity investments. These investments involve a higher degree of risk than conventional debt financing due to a variety of factors, including their non-collateralized nature and subordinated ranking to other loans and liabilities of the entity in which such preferred equity is held. Accordingly, if the issuer defaults on our investment, we would only be able to proceed against such entity in accordance with the terms of the preferred security and not against any property owned by such entity. Furthermore, in the event of bankruptcy or foreclosure, we would only be able to recoup our investment after all lenders to, and other creditors of, such entity are paid in full. As a result, we may lose all or a significant part of our investment, which could result in significant losses.

Construction or rehabilitation loans generally expose a lender to greater risk of non-payment and loss than permanent commercial mortgage loans because repayment of the loans often depends on the borrower’s ability to secure permanent “take-out” financing, which requires the successful completion of construction, renovation, refurbishment or expansion and stabilization of the project, or operation of the property with an income stream sufficient to meet operating expenses, including debt service on such replacement financing. For construction or rehabilitation loans, increased risks include the accuracy of the estimate of the property’s value at completion of construction, renovation, refurbishment or expansion and the estimated cost of construction, renovation, refurbishment or expansion—all of which may be affected by unanticipated delays and cost over-runs. Such loans typically involve an expectation that the borrower’s sponsors will contribute sufficient equity funds in order to keep the loan “in balance,” and the sponsors’ failure or inability to meet this obligation could result in delays in construction, renovation, refurbishment or expansion or an inability to complete such work. Commercial construction or rehabilitation loans also expose the lender to additional risks of contractor non-performance or borrower disputes with contractors resulting in mechanic’s or materialmen’s liens on the property and possible further delay. In addition, since such loans generally entail greater risk than mortgage loans on income producing property, we may need to increase our allowance for loan losses in the future to account for the likely increase in probable incurred credit losses associated with such loans. Further, as the lender under a construction or rehabilitation loan, we may be obligated to fund all or a significant portion of the loan at one or more future dates. We may not have the funds available at such future date(s) to meet our funding obligations under the loan. In that event, we would likely be in breach of the loan unless we are able to raise the funds from alternative sources, which we may not be able to achieve on favorable terms or at all. In addition, many of our construction or rehabilitation loans have multiple lenders and if another lender fails to fund, we could be faced with the choice of either funding for that defaulting lender or suffering a delay or protracted interruption in the progress of construction, renovation, refurbishment or expansion.

Commercial mortgage loans are secured by multifamily or commercial property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss 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,

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 of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process, which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan.

Our investments in CMBS are subject to losses. In general, losses on a mortgaged property securing a mortgage loan included in a securitization will be borne first by the equity holder of the property, then by a cash reserve fund or letter of credit, if any, then by the holder of a mezzanine loan or B-Note, if any, then by the “first loss” subordinated security holder (generally, the “B-Piece” buyer) and then by the holder of a higher-rated security. In the event of default and the exhaustion of any equity support, reserve fund, letter of credit, mezzanine loans or B-Notes, and any classes of securities junior to those in which we invest, we will not be able to recover all of our investment in the securities we purchase. In addition, if the underlying mortgage portfolio has been overvalued by the originator, or if the values subsequently decline and, as a result, less collateral is available to satisfy interest and principal payments due on the related CMBS, there would be an increased risk of loss. The prices of

Any significant dislocations, illiquidity or volatility in the real estate and securitization markets, including the market for CMBS, as well as global financial markets and the economy generally, could adversely affect our business and financial results. We cannot assure you that dislocations in the commercial mortgage loan market will not occur in the future.

Challenging economic conditions affect the financial strength of many commercial, multifamily and other tenants and result in increased rent delinquencies and decreased occupancy. Economic challenges may lead to decreased occupancy, decreased rents or other declines in income from, or the value of, commercial, multifamily and manufactured housing community real estate.

Declining commercial real estate values, coupled with tighter underwriting standards for commercial real estate loans, may prevent commercial borrowers from refinancing their mortgages, which results in increased delinquencies and defaults on commercial, multifamily and other mortgage loans. Declines in commercial real estate values also result in reduced borrower equity, further hindering borrowers’ ability to refinance in an environment of increasingly restrictive lending standards and giving them less incentive to cure delinquencies and avoid foreclosure. The lack of refinancing opportunities has impacted and could impact in the future, in particular, mortgage loans that do not fully amortize and on which there is a substantial balloon payment due at maturity, because borrowers generally expect to refinance these types of loans on or prior to their maturity date. Finally, declining commercial real estate values and the associated increases in loan-to-value ratios would result in lower recoveries on foreclosure and an increase in losses above those that would have been realized had commercial property values remained the same or increased. Continuing defaults, delinquencies and losses would further decrease property values, thereby resulting in additional defaults by commercial mortgage borrowers, further credit constraints and further declines in property values.

We value our investments based on yields and risks, taking into account estimated future losses on the mortgage loans and the underlying collateral included in the securitization’s pools, and the estimated impact of these losses on expected future cash flows and returns. Our loss estimates may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates. In the event that we underestimate the asset level losses relative to the price we pay for a particular investment, we may experience losses with respect to such investment.

The valuation of real estate and therefore the valuation of any underlying security relating to loans made by us is inherently subjective due to, among other factors, the individual nature of each property, its location, the expected future rental revenues from that particular property and the valuation methodology adopted. In addition, where we invest in construction loans, initial valuations will assume completion of the project. As a result, the valuations of the real estate assets against which we make loans are subject to a degree of uncertainty and are made on the basis of assumptions and methodologies that may not prove to be accurate, particularly in periods of volatility, low transaction flow or restricted debt availability in the commercial or residential real estate markets.

We may invest in corporate bank debt and in debt securities of commercial real estate operating or finance companies. These investments involve special risks relating to the particular company, including its financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, business and prospects. In particular, the debt securities are often non-collateralized and may also be subordinated to its other obligations. We also invest in debt securities of companies that are not rated or are rated non-investment grade by one or more rating agencies. Investments that are not rated or are rated non-investment grade have a higher risk of default than investment grade rated assets and therefore may result in losses to us. We have not adopted any limit on such investments.

These investments also subject us to the risks inherent with real estate-related investments, including:

These risks may adversely affect the value of our investments in commercial real estate operating and finance companies and the ability of the issuers thereof to make principal and interest payments in a timely manner, or at all, and could result in significant losses.

Many of our investments do not conform to conventional loan standards applied by traditional lenders and either are not rated or rated as non-investment grade by the rating agencies. The non-investment grade credit ratings for these assets typically result from the overall leverage of the loans, the lack of a strong operating history for the properties underlying the loans, the borrowers’ credit history, the properties’ underlying cash flow or other factors. As a result, these investments have a higher risk of default and loss than investment grade rated assets. Any loss we incur may be significant and may reduce distributions to our stockholders and adversely affect the market value of our common stock. There are no limits on the percentage of unrated or non-investment grade rated assets we may hold in our investment portfolio.

Some of our investments are rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Fitch Ratings, Inc., S&P Global Ratings, DBRS, Inc. or Kroll Bond Rating Agency, Inc. Any credit ratings on our investments 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. If rating agencies assign a lower-than-expected rating or reduce or withdraw, or indicate that they may reduce or withdraw, their ratings of our investments in the future, the value of these investments 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.

We invest in B-Notes. A B-Note is a mortgage loan typically (i) secured by a first mortgage on a single large commercial property or group of related properties and (ii) subordinated to an A-Note secured by the same first mortgage on the same collateral. As a result, if a borrower defaults, there may not be sufficient funds remaining for a B-Note holder after payment to the A-Note holder. However, because each transaction is privately negotiated, B-Notes can vary in their structural characteristics and risks. For example, the rights of holders of B-Notes to control the process following a borrower default may vary from transaction to transaction. Further, B-Notes typically are secured by a single property and so reflect the risks associated with significant concentration. Significant losses related to our B-Notes would result in operating losses for us and may limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We invest in mezzanine loans, which sometimes take the form of subordinated loans secured by second mortgages on the underlying property or more commonly take the form of 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 our mezzanine loan. If a borrower defaults on our mezzanine loan or debt senior to our loan, or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, our mezzanine loan will be satisfied only after the senior debt. As a result, we may not recover some or all of our investment. In addition, mezzanine loans may have higher loan-to-value ratios than conventional mortgage loans, resulting in less equity in the property and increasing the risk of loss of principal. Significant losses related to our mezzanine loans would result in operating losses for us and may limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We may acquire bridge loans secured by first lien mortgages on a property to borrowers who are typically seeking short-term capital to be used in an acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of a property, or other short-term liquidity needs. The typical borrower under a bridge loan has usually identified an undervalued asset that has been under-managed and/or is located in a recovering market. If the market in which the asset is located fails to recover according to the borrower’s projections, or if the borrower fails to improve the quality of the asset’s management and/or the value of the asset, the borrower may not receive a sufficient return on the asset to satisfy the bridge loan, and we bear the risk that we may not recover some or all of our initial expenditure.

In addition, borrowers usually use the proceeds of a conventional mortgage to repay a bridge loan. A bridge loan therefore is subject to the risk of a borrower’s inability to obtain permanent financing to repay the bridge loan. Bridge loans are also subject to risks of borrower defaults, bankruptcies, fraud, losses and special hazard losses that are not covered by standard hazard insurance. In the event of any default under bridge loans held by us, we bear the risk of loss of principal and non-payment of interest and fees to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the mortgage collateral and the principal amount and unpaid interest of the bridge loan. To the extent we suffer such losses with respect to our bridge loans, the value of our company and the price of our shares of common stock may be adversely affected.

We own non-agency RMBS backed by collateral pools of mortgage loans that have been originated using underwriting standards that are less restrictive than those used in underwriting “prime” 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 mortgaged 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 increased interest rates and lower home prices, as well as aggressive lending practices, subprime mortgage loans have in recent periods 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 and alternative documentation (“Alt-A”) mortgage loans, the performance of non-agency RMBS backed by subprime mortgage loans and Alt-A mortgage loans that we acquire could be correspondingly adversely affected, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

We may from time to time acquire residential loans, including residential loans sometimes referred to as “non-qualified mortgages” or “non-QMs” that will not have the benefit of enhanced legal protections otherwise available in connection with the origination of residential loans to a more restrictive credit standard than just determining a borrower’s ability to repay, as further described below.

The ownership of residential loans, including non-QMs, subjects us to legal, regulatory and other risks, including those arising under federal consumer protection laws and regulations designed to regulate residential loan underwriting and originators’ lending processes, standards and disclosures to borrowers. These laws and regulations include the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule (also referred to as “TRID”), the “ability-to-repay” rules (“ATR Rules”) under the Truth-in-Lending Act and “qualified mortgage” regulations, in addition to various federal, state and local laws and regulations intended to discourage predatory lending practices by residential loan originators. The ATR Rules specify the characteristics of a “qualified mortgage” and two levels of presumption of compliance with the ATR Rules: a safe harbor and a rebuttable presumption for higher priced loans. The “safe harbor” under the ATR Rules applies to a covered transaction that meets the definition of “qualified mortgage” and is not a “higher-priced covered transaction.” For any covered transaction that meets the definition of a “qualified mortgage” and is not a “higher-priced covered transaction,” the creditor or assignee will be deemed to have complied with the ability-to-repay requirement and, accordingly, will be conclusively presumed to have made a good faith and reasonable determination of the consumer’s reasonable ability to repay. Creditors or assignees will have the benefit of a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the applicable ATR Rules if they have complied with the qualified mortgage characteristics of the ATR Rules other than the residential loan being higher-priced in excess of certain thresholds. Non-QMs are among the loan products that we may acquire that do not constitute qualified mortgages and, accordingly, do not have the benefit of either a safe harbor from liability under the ATR Rules or a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the ATR Rules. Application of certain standards set forth in the ATR Rules is highly subjective and subject to interpretive uncertainties. As a result, a court may determine that a residential loan did not meet the standard or test even if the originator reasonably believed such standard or test had been satisfied. Failure of residential loan originators or servicers to comply with these laws and regulations could subject us, as an assignee or purchaser of these loans (or as an investor in securities backed by these loans), to monetary penalties assessed by the CFPB through its administrative enforcement authority and by mortgagors through a private right of action against lenders or as a defense to foreclosure, including by recoupment or setoff of finance charges and fees collected, and could result in rescission of the affected residential loans, which could adversely impact our business and financial results. Such risks may be higher in connection with the acquisition of non-QMs. Borrowers under non-QMs may be more likely to challenge the analysis conducted under the ATR Rules by lenders. Even if a borrower does not succeed in the challenge, additional costs may be incurred in connection with challenging and defending such claims, which may be more costly in judicial foreclosure jurisdictions than in non-judicial

In addition, when certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries sell, finance or sponsor securitizations of residential loans, such subsidiaries may make representations and warranties to the purchaser, the financing provider or to other third parties regarding, among other things, certain characteristics of those assets, including characteristics sought to be verified through underwriting and due diligence efforts. In the event of breaches of representations and warranties with respect to any asset, such subsidiaries may be obligated to repurchase that asset or pay damages or remove that asset from the borrowing base, as applicable, which may result in a loss. Even if representations and warranties are made by counterparties from whom we acquired the loans, they may not parallel the representations and warranties our subsidiaries make or may otherwise not protect us from losses, including, for example, due to the fact that the counterparty may be insolvent or otherwise unable to make a payment at the time of a claim against such counterparty for damages for a breach of a representation or warranty.

Residential loans are secured by single-family residential property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property typically is dependent upon the income and/or assets of the borrower. A number of factors may impair borrowers’ abilities to repay their loans, including:

In the event of any default under a residential 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 price we paid for the loan and any accrued interest of the mortgage loan plus advances made, which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations. 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. Additionally, foreclosure on a mortgage loan could subject us to greater concentration of the risks of the residential real estate markets and risks related to the ownership and management of real property.

We may acquire non-agency RMBS, which are backed by residential property but, in contrast to agency RMBS, their principal and interest are not guaranteed by federally chartered entities such as the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and, in the case of the Government National Mortgage Association, the U.S. government. Our investments in RMBS are subject to the risks of default, foreclosure timeline extension, fraud, home price depreciation and unfavorable modification of loan principal amount, interest rate and amortization of principal accompanying the underlying residential loans. To the extent that assets underlying our investments are concentrated geographically, by property type or in certain other respects, we may be subject to certain of the foregoing risks to a greater extent. In the event of defaults on the residential loans that underlie our investments in agency RMBS and the exhaustion of any underlying or any additional credit support, we may not realize our anticipated return on our investments and we may incur a loss on these investments.

Our ability to promptly foreclose upon defaulted residential loans and liquidate the underlying real property plays a critical role in our valuation of, and expected return on, those investments. There are a variety of factors that may inhibit our ability to foreclose upon a residential loan and liquidate the real property within the time frames we model as part of our valuation process. These factors include, without limitation: federal, state or local legislative action or initiatives designed to

The value of our investment portfolio is affected by prepayment rates on our mortgage assets. In many cases, borrowers are not prohibited from making prepayments on their mortgage loans. Prepayment rates are influenced by changes in interest rates and a variety of economic, geographic and other factors beyond our control, including, without limitation, housing and financial markets and relative interest rates on fixed rate mortgage loans and adjustable rate mortgage loans (“ARMs”). Consequently, prepayment rates cannot be predicted.

We generally receive principal payments that are made on our mortgage assets, including residential loans underlying the agency RMBS or the non-agency RMBS that we acquire. When borrowers prepay their mortgage loans faster than expected, it results in prepayments that are faster than expected. Faster than expected prepayments could adversely affect our profitability and our ability to recoup our cost of certain investments purchased at a premium over par value, including in the following ways:

While we seek to minimize prepayment risk to the extent practical, in selecting investments we must balance prepayment risk against other risks and the potential returns of each investment. No strategy can completely insulate us from prepayment risk.

To the extent that we invest in agency RMBS backed by ARMs, we may finance these investments with borrowings that have interest rates that adjust more frequently than the interest rates of those agency RMBS or the ARMs that back those RMBS. Accordingly, if short-term interest rates increase, our borrowing costs may increase faster than the interest rates on agency RMBS backed by 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 rates on our agency RMBS and on our borrowings will not be 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 our ability to make distributions and the market price of our common stock.

In addition, agency RMBS backed by ARMs are typically subject to lifetime interest rate caps which limit the amount that interest rates can increase through the maturity of the agency RMBS. 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 agency RMBS. This problem is magnified for agency RMBS backed by ARMs that are not fully indexed. Further, some agency RMBS backed by 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 cash income on these types of agency RMBS 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 invest in distressed and non-performing commercial mortgage loans, which are subject to increased risks of loss. Such loans may be or become non-performing for a variety of reasons, including, without limitation, because the underlying property is too highly leveraged or the borrower falls upon financial distress, in either case, resulting in the borrower being unable to meet its debt service obligations. Such loans may require a substantial amount of workout negotiations and/or

The financial or operating difficulties relating to the distressed or non-performing loan may never be overcome and may cause the borrower to become subject to bankruptcy or other similar administrative proceedings. In connection with any such proceeding, we may incur substantial or total losses on our investments and may become subject to certain additional potential liabilities that may exceed the value of our original investment therein. For example, under certain circumstances, a lender that has inappropriately exercised control over the management and policies of a debtor may have its claims subordinated or disallowed or may be found liable for damages suffered by parties as a result of such actions. In addition, under certain circumstances, payments to us may be reclaimed if any such payment is later determined to have been a fraudulent conveyance, preferential payment or similar transaction under applicable bankruptcy and insolvency laws.

Alternatively, we may find it necessary or desirable to foreclose on one of these loans, and the foreclosure process may be lengthy and expensive. Borrowers or junior lenders may resist mortgage foreclosure actions by asserting numerous claims, counterclaims and defenses against us. Any costs or delays involved in the effectuation of a foreclosure of the loan or a liquidation of the underlying property, or defending challenges brought after the completion of a foreclosure, will further reduce the proceeds and thus increase our loss.

Some of our portfolio investments are in the form of positions or securities that are not publicly traded. The fair value of securities and other investments that are not publicly traded may not be readily determinable. We value these investments quarterly at fair value, as determined in accordance with GAAP, which include consideration of 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 securities existed. The value of our common stock could be adversely affected if our determinations regarding the fair value of these investments were materially higher than the values that we ultimately realize upon their disposal.

A decline in the fair value of our assets would require us to recognize an unrealized loss against earnings for those assets that are recorded at fair value through earnings, or may trigger an impairment, credit loss or other charge against earnings under applicable GAAP for those assets that are not recorded at fair value through earnings if we expect that the carrying value of those assets will not be recoverable. Subsequent disposition or sale of such assets could further affect our future losses or gains depending on the actual proceeds received.

We may be subject to environmental liabilities arising from properties we own. Under various U.S. federal, state and local laws, an owner or operator of real property may become liable for the costs of removal of certain hazardous substances released on its property. These 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 a property underlying one of our debt investments becomes liable for removal costs, the ability of the owner to make payments to us may be reduced, which in turn may adversely affect the value of the relevant mortgage asset held by us and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The presence of hazardous substances on a property we own may adversely affect our ability to sell the property and we may incur substantial remediation costs, thus harming our financial condition. The discovery of material environmental liabilities attached to such properties could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We invest in commercial properties subject to net leases, including the Master Lease Portfolio. Typically, net leases require the tenants to pay substantially all of the operating costs associated with the properties. As a result, the value of, and income from, investments in commercial properties subject to net leases will depend, in part, upon the ability of the applicable tenant to meet its obligations to maintain the property under the terms of the net lease. If a tenant fails or becomes unable to so maintain a property, we will be subject to all risks associated with owning the underlying real estate. Under many net leases, however, the owner of the property retains certain obligations with respect to the property, including, among other things, the responsibility for maintenance and repair of the property, to provide adequate parking, maintenance of common areas and

We expect that some commercial properties subject to net leases in which we invest generally will be occupied by a single tenant and, therefore, the success of these investments will be materially dependent on the financial stability of each such tenant. A default of any such tenant on its lease payments to us would cause us to lose the revenue from the property and cause us to have to find an alternative source of revenue to meet any mortgage payment and prevent a foreclosure if the property is subject to a mortgage. In the event of a default, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-letting our property. If a lease is terminated, we may also incur significant losses to make the leased premises ready for another tenant and experience difficulty or a significant delay in re-leasing such property.

In addition, net leases typically have longer lease terms and, thus, there is an increased risk that contractual rental increases in future years will fail to result in fair market rental rates during those years.

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.

We acquire and manage equity interests in commercial real estate assets. The economic performance and value of these investments can be adversely affected by many factors that are generally applicable to most real estate, including the following:

Certain significant expenditures associated with an investment in commercial real estate assets (such as mortgage payments, real estate taxes and maintenance costs) generally do not decline when circumstances cause a reduction in income from the asset. Because real estate investments are relatively illiquid, our ability to vary any investments in commercial real estate assets promptly in response to economic or other conditions would be limited. This relative illiquidity could impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of such investments. The value of our equity investments in commercial real estate assets could decrease in the future.

Our acquisition of equity interests in commercial real estate assets is subject to, and the success of those assets may be adversely affected by, various risks, including those described below:

We make equity investments in commercial real estate assets subject to both known and unknown liabilities and without any recourse, or with only limited recourse to the seller thereof. As a result, if a liability were asserted against us arising from our ownership of those assets, we might have to pay substantial sums to settle it, which could adversely affect us. Unknown liabilities with respect to commercial real estate assets may include:

We own, and may acquire additional, equity interests in affordable housing communities and other properties that benefit from governmental programs intended to provide housing to individuals with low or moderate incomes. These programs, which are typically administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) or

We own, and may acquire additional, equity interests in properties relating to the healthcare industry, including the Medical Office Portfolio. The economic performance and value of these properties and of some or all of the tenants/operators of such properties could be adversely affected by many factors that are generally applicable to properties relating to the healthcare industry, including the following:

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:

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

The success of our prior acquisition of the Infrastructure Lending Segment depends, in part, on our ability to realize the anticipated benefits from successfully integrating the Infrastructure Lending Segment with our company. The combination of this business with ours is a complex, costly and time-consuming process. As a result, we are required to devote significant management attention and resources to integrating the Infrastructure Lending Segment with the rest of our company.  The

The success of the Infrastructure Lending Segment largely depends on the skills, experience, industry contacts and continued efforts of management and other key personnel. As a result, for the Infrastructure Lending Segment to be successful, we must retain and motivate executives and other key employees.  Employees from the Infrastructure Lending Segment may experience uncertainty about their future roles with us until or after strategies relating to the Infrastructure Lending Segment are executed. In addition, the marketplace for infrastructure debt professionals is highly competitive and other infrastructure debt providers may seek to recruit our executives and other key employees. These circumstances may adversely affect our ability to retain executives of the Infrastructure Lending Segment and other key personnel. If we are unable to retain executives and other key employees, the roles and responsibilities of such executive officers and employees will need to be filled either by existing or new officers and employees, which may require us to devote time and resources to identifying, hiring and integrating replacements for the departed executives and employees that could otherwise be used to pursue business opportunities. Moreover, because the marketplace for infrastructure debt professionals is highly competitive, we may not be able to replace departing employees on a timely basis or at all without incurring significant expense.

In addition, we leverage the existing capabilities of Lotus Infrastructure Partners (formerly Starwood Energy Group) and Starwood Oil and Gas, affiliates of our Manager, with respect to our existing and future infrastructure debt investments, and our success depends, in part, on our ability to do so.  Neither Lotus Infrastructure Partners or Starwood Oil and Gas has an obligation to provide any services to us, and so our ability to access Lotus Infrastructure Partners’ and Starwood Oil and Gas’ existing capabilities is dependent on our ongoing relationship with our Manager and Starwood Capital Group.  See “—Risks Related to Our Relationship with Our Manager.” Accordingly, we may not continue to have access to Lotus Infrastructure Partners or Starwood Oil and Gas and their respective officers and key personnel.

We are subject to the risks of investing in project finance investments. Infrastructure loans are subject to the risk of default, foreclosure and loss, and the risk of loss may be greater than similar risks associated with loans made on other types of assets.  The loan structure for project finance relies primarily on the underlying project’s cash flows for repayment, with the project’s assets, rights and interests, together with the equity in the project company, typically pledged as collateral.  Accordingly, the ability of the project company to repay a project finance loan is dependent upon the successful development, construction and/or operation of such project rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the project company.  Moreover, the loans are typically non-recourse or limited recourse to the project sponsor, and the project company, as a special purpose entity, typically has no assets other than the project.  Accordingly, if the project’s cash flows are reduced or are otherwise less than projected, the project company’s ability to repay the loan will likely be impaired.  The Infrastructure

In the event of any default under a project finance loan, we bear the risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral, if any, and the principal and accrued interest of the loan, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.  In the event of the bankruptcy of a project company, our investment will be deemed to be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession and our contractual rights may be unenforceable under state or other applicable law. Foreclosure proceedings against a project can be an expensive and lengthy process, which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed investment.

Many of the investments in the portfolio of our Infrastructure Lending Segment are focused in the power industry, including thermal power and renewable power. If there is a downturn in the U.S. or global power industry generally, the applicable infrastructure investments may default or not perform in accordance with expectations.  In addition to the factors described above regarding the general risks of investing in project finance, the power industry and its subsectors can be adversely affected by, among other factors:

In addition to investments focused in the power industry, our portfolio also contains a concentration of investments related to projects in the midstream oil and gas industry, which also subjects us to certain risks inherent in the midstream oil and gas industry.

Loans to power projects or midstream oil and gas projects may be adversely affected if production from the projects declines. Such declines may be caused by various factors, including, as applicable, decreased access to capital or loss of economic incentive to complete a project or continue to operate a project, depletion of resources, catastrophic events affecting production, labor difficulties, political events, environmental proceedings, increased regulations, equipment failures and unexpected maintenance problems, failure to obtain necessary permits, unscheduled outages, unanticipated expenses, inability to successfully carry out new construction or acquisitions, import or export supply and demand disruptions or increased competition from alternative energy sources.

The default of one or more of the infrastructure loans as a result of a downturn within the energy industry or the midstream oil and gas industry generally, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Under certain circumstances, we may find it difficult to meet our remaining funding obligations with the existing infrastructure loans, or with respect to future infrastructure loans, from our ordinary operations.  In such situations, in order to meet our then-existing funding obligations, we may be required to: (i) sell assets in adverse market conditions; (ii) borrow on unfavorable terms; or (iii) fund the infrastructure loans with amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt. These alternatives could increase our costs or reduce our equity. Thus, compliance with the funding obligations with respect to the infrastructure loans may hinder our ability to grow, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.  In the event that we are unable to meet our funding obligations with respect to one or more infrastructure loans, we would be in breach of such loan(s), which could damage our reputation and could result in a lawsuit being brought by the project company or others, which could result in substantial costs and divert our attention and resources.

The projects to which our infrastructure loans relate, which are focused in the power industry and oil and gas industry, are subject to significant and extensive federal, international, state and local governmental regulation, including how facilities are constructed, maintained and operated, environmental and safety controls, and the prices they may charge for the products and services they provide. Various governmental authorities have the power to enforce compliance with these regulations and the permits issued under them, and violators are subject to administrative, civil and criminal penalties, including civil fines, injunctions or both. Stricter laws, regulations or enforcement policies could be enacted in the future that likely would increase compliance costs, which could adversely affect the business and financial performance of the projects.  Any of the foregoing could result in a default on one or more of our investments, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Although the covenants in the financing documentation relating to the infrastructure loans generally restrict certain actions that may be taken by project companies (including restrictions on making equity distributions and incurring additional indebtedness), we generally are not able to control the projects underlying our infrastructure loans.  As a result, we are subject to the risk that the project company may make business decisions with which we disagree or that the project company may take risks or otherwise act in ways that do not serve our interests.

The ongoing operation of a project underlying any of our infrastructure loans involves risks that include, among other things, the breakdown or failure of equipment or processes or performance below expected levels of output or efficiency due to wear and tear, latent defect, design error or operator error or force majeure events. In addition to natural risks such as earthquakes, floods, droughts, lightning, wildfires, hurricanes, wind, global climate change and pandemics, epidemics or other public health emergencies, other hazards, such as fire, explosion, structural collapse and machinery failure, acts of terrorism or related acts of war, hostile cyber intrusions or other catastrophic events are inherent risks in the operation of a project. These and other hazards can cause significant personal injury or loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property, plant and equipment and contamination of, or damage to, the environment and suspension of operations. Operation of a project also involves risks that the operator will be unable to transport its product to its customers in an efficient manner due to a lack of

Certain of the loans in the Infrastructure Lending segment have been, or are expected to be, made to companies that engage in oil and gas exploration and production. These companies generate revenue, and our loans are expected to be repaid, from a combination of (i) sales of oil and gas under contracts pursuant to which third parties – rather than our borrowers – bear most of the risk of commodity price fluctuation and (ii) sales of oil and gas in the open commodity markets at then-prevailing prices. To the extent production from the underlying oil and gas wells is lower than forecasted, there is non-performance by (or a bankruptcy or insolvency of) the counterparty under a commodity contract, or the spot market price for the commodities decreases, the borrowers’ revenues, and ability to repay our loan, may be negatively affected.

The Infrastructure Lending Segment is held in one or more domestic or foreign subsidiaries in order to facilitate our financing of the acquisition of that portfolio and aid in the maintenance of our status as a REIT under the Code.�� The domestic subsidiary that initially acquired a significant portion of the pre-existing investment portfolio of the Infrastructure Lending Segment is disregarded as to our company for U.S. federal income tax purposes and we have elected to have other foreign and domestic subsidiaries that hold or will hold a portion of the pre-existing portfolio each treated as a TRS.  With respect to newly originated infrastructure loans, we will hold such loans either in a subsidiary that is disregarded as to our company for U.S. federal income tax purposes or in foreign or domestic TRSs that are subject to U.S. taxation under the general rules applicable to such corporations.  See “—Risks Related to Taxation as a REIT.”

Certain interest payments to us or to any such domestic or foreign subsidiary made by the underlying borrowers with respect to the infrastructure loans may be subject to withholding taxes in the jurisdictions in which the related facilities or borrowers are located, which would reduce the net proceeds from such payments that are received by us.

In our Investing and Servicing Segment, we derive a substantial portion of our cash flows from the special servicing of pools of commercial mortgage loans. As special servicer, we typically receive fees based upon the outstanding balance of the loans that are being specially serviced by us. The balance of loans in special servicing where we act as special servicer could decline significantly and as such our servicing fees could likewise decline materially. The special servicing industry is highly competitive, and our inability to compete successfully with other firms to maintain our existing servicing portfolio and obtain future servicing opportunities could have a material and adverse impact on our future cash flows and results of operations. Because the right to appoint the special servicer for securitized mortgage loans generally resides with the holder of the “controlling class” position in the relevant trust and may migrate to holders of different classes of securities as additional losses are realized, our ability to maintain our existing servicing rights and obtain future servicing opportunities may require, in many cases, the acquisition of additional CMBS. Accordingly, our ability to compete effectively may depend, in part, on the availability of additional debt or equity capital to fund these purchases. To maintain our existing servicing rights and to obtain future assignments, in certain instances our special servicer entity has entered and in the future will enter into a fee sharing arrangement with the holder of the controlling class. Additionally, our existing servicing portfolio is subject to “run off,” meaning that mortgage loans serviced by us may be prepaid prior to maturity, refinanced with a mortgage not serviced by us, liquidated through foreclosure, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or other liquidation processes or repaid through standard amortization of principal, resulting in lower servicing fees and/or lower returns on the subordinated securities owned by us. Improving economic conditions and property prices and declines in interest rates and greater availability of mortgage financing could reduce the incidence of assets going into special servicing and reduce our revenues from special servicing, including as a result of lower fees under new arrangements. The fair value of our servicing rights may decrease under the foregoing circumstances, resulting in losses.

In connection with the special servicing of mortgage loans, a special servicer may, at the direction of the directing certificateholder, generally take actions with respect to the specially serviced mortgage loans that could adversely affect the holders of some or all of the more senior classes of CMBS. We may hold subordinated CMBS and we may or may not be the directing holder in any CMBS transaction in which we also act as special servicer. We may have conflicts of interest in exercising our rights as holder of subordinated classes of CMBS and in owning the entity that also acts as the special servicer for such transactions. It is possible that we, acting as the directing certificateholder for a CMBS transaction, may direct special servicer actions that conflict with the interests of certain other classes of the CMBS issued in that transaction. The special servicer is not permitted to take actions that are prohibited by law or that violate the applicable servicing standard or the terms of the applicable CMBS documentation or the applicable mortgage loan documentation, and we are subject to the risk of claims asserted by mortgage loan borrowers and the holders of other classes of CMBS that we have violated applicable law or, if applicable, the servicing standard and our other obligations under such CMBS documentation or mortgage loan documentation, as a result of actions we may take.

The conduit operations in our Investing and Servicing Segment are subject to volatile market conditions and significant competition. In addition, the conduit business may suffer losses as a result of ineffective or inadequate hedges and credit issues.

In our Investing and Servicing Segment, we acquire subordinated securities issued by and act as special servicer for securitizations. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), various federal agencies have promulgated a rule that generally requires issuers in securitizations to retain 5% of the risk associated with the securities. While the rule as adopted generally allows the purchase of the CMBS B-Piece by a party not affiliated with the issuer to satisfy the risk retention requirement, current CMBS B-Pieces are generally not large enough to fully satisfy the 5% requirement. Accordingly, buyers of B-Pieces such as us may be required to purchase larger B-Pieces, potentially reducing returns on such investments. Furthermore, any such B-Pieces purchased by a party (such as us) unaffiliated with the issuer generally cannot be transferred for a period of five years following the closing date of the securitization or hedged against credit risk. These restrictions may reduce our liquidity and could potentially reduce our returns on such investments.

The mortgage loan servicing activities of our Investing and Servicing Segment are subject to a still evolving set of regulations, including regulations being promulgated under the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, various governmental authorities have increased their investigative focus on the activities of mortgage loan servicers. As a result, we may have to spend additional resources and devote additional management time to address any regulatory concerns, which may reduce the resources available to grow our business. In addition, if we fail to operate the servicing activities of our Investing and Servicing Segment in compliance with existing and future regulations, our business, reputation, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

CMBS are subject to the various risks that relate to the pool of underlying commercial mortgage loans and any other assets in which the CMBS represents an interest. In addition, CMBS are subject to additional risks arising from the geographic, property type and other types of concentrations in the pool of underlying commercial mortgage loans, which risks are magnified by the subordinated nature of the CMBS in which we invest in our Investing and Servicing Segment. In the event of defaults on the mortgage loans in the CMBS trusts, we bear a risk of loss on our related subordinated CMBS to the extent of deficiencies between the value of the collateral and the principal, accrued interest and unpaid fees and expenses on the mortgage loans, which may be offset to some extent by the special servicing fees received by us on those mortgage loans. The yield to maturity on the CMBS depends largely upon the price paid for the CMBS, which are generally sold at a discount at issuance and trade at even steeper discounts in the secondary markets. Further, the yield to maturity on CMBS depends, in significant part, upon the rate and timing of principal payments on the underlying mortgage loans, including both voluntary prepayments, if permitted, and involuntary prepayments, such as prepayments resulting from casualty or condemnation, defaults and liquidations or repurchases upon breaches of representations and warranties or document defects. Any changes in the weighted average lives of CMBS may adversely affect yield on the CMBS. Prepayments resulting in a shortening of weighted average lives of CMBS may be made at a time of low interest rates when we may be unable to reinvest the resulting payment of principal on the CMBS at a rate comparable to that being earned on the CMBS, while delays and extensions resulting in a lengthening of those weighted average lives may occur at a time of high interest rates when we may have been able to reinvest scheduled principal payments at higher rates.

The exercise of remedies and successful realization of liquidation proceeds relating to commercial mortgage loans underlying CMBS may be highly dependent on our performance as special servicer. We attempt to underwrite investments on a “loss-adjusted” basis, which projects a certain level of performance. However, this underwriting may not accurately predict the

The market value of CMBS investments could fluctuate materially over time as the result of changes in mortgage spreads, treasury bond interest rates, capital market supply and demand factors, and many other factors that affect high-yield fixed income products. These factors are out of our control and could impair our ability to obtain short-term financing on the CMBS. CMBS investments, especially subordinated classes of CMBS, may have no, or only a limited, trading market. The financial markets have experienced and may continue to experience volatility and reduced liquidity, which may continue and reduce the market value of CMBS. Some or all of the CMBS, especially subordinated classes of CMBS, may be subject to restrictions on transfer and may be considered illiquid.

Most of the assets in our Investing and Servicing Segment are held through a TRS, which is subject to entity level taxes on income that it earns. Such taxes have materially increased the taxes paid by our TRSs. In addition, certain of the assets in our Investing and Servicing Segment include entities organized or assets located in foreign jurisdictions. Taxes that we or such entities pay in foreign jurisdictions may not be passed through to, or used by, our stockholders as a foreign tax credit or otherwise.

Following our acquisition of LNR in 2013, we became required to consolidate the assets and liabilities of certain CMBS pools in which we own the controlling class of subordinated securities into our financial statements, even though the value of the subordinated securities may represent a small interest relative to the size of the pool. Under GAAP, companies are required to consolidate VIEs in which they are determined to be the primary beneficiary. A VIE must be consolidated only by its primary beneficiary, which is defined as the party who, along with its affiliates and agents, has a potentially significant interest in the entity and controls the entity’s significant decisions. As a result of the foregoing, our financial statements are more complex and may be more difficult to understand than if we did not consolidate the CMBS pools.

Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law (the “MGCL”) that are applicable to Maryland REITs, such as the Company, may have the effect of deterring a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change in control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our common stock. We are subject to the “business combination” provisions of the MGCL that, subject to limitations, prohibit certain business combinations (including a merger, consolidation, share exchange or, in circumstances specified in the statute, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities) between us and an “interested stockholder” (defined generally as any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of our then outstanding voting capital stock or an affiliate or associate of ours who, at any time within the two-year period prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of our then outstanding voting capital stock) or an affiliate thereof for five years after the most recent date on which the stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. After the five-year prohibition, any business combination between us and an interested stockholder generally must be recommended by our board of directors and approved by the affirmative vote of at least (i) 80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of outstanding shares of our voting capital stock and (ii) two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of voting capital stock of the corporation other than shares held by the interested stockholder with whom or with whose affiliate the business combination is to be effected or held by an affiliate or associate of the interested stockholder. These super-majority voting requirements do not apply if our common stockholders receive a minimum price, as defined under Maryland law, for their shares in the form of cash or other consideration in the same form as previously paid by the interested stockholder for its shares. These provisions of the MGCL also do not apply to business combinations that are approved or exempted by a board of directors prior to the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. Pursuant to the statute, our board of directors has by resolution exempted business combinations between us and any other person, provided that such business combination is first approved by our board of directors (including a majority of our directors who are not affiliates or associates of such person).

The “control share” provisions of the MGCL provide that “control shares” of a Maryland corporation (defined as shares which, when aggregated with other shares controlled by the stockholder (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy), entitle the stockholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a “control share acquisition” (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of ownership or control of “control shares”) have no voting rights except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding votes entitled to be cast by the acquirer of control shares, our officers and our personnel who are also our directors. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of shares of our stock, but this provision could be amended or eliminated at any time in the future.

The “unsolicited takeover” provisions of the MGCL permit our board of directors, without stockholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our charter or bylaws, to implement takeover defenses, some of which (for example, a classified board) we do not yet have. These provisions may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making an acquisition proposal for us or of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us under the circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of shares of common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then current market price.

Our charter authorizes us to issue additional authorized but unissued shares of common or preferred stock. In addition, our board of directors may, without stockholder approval, amend our charter to increase the aggregate number of our shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series that we have authority to issue and classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common or preferred stock and set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares. As a result, our board of directors may establish a series of shares of common or preferred stock that could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for our shares of common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

We intend to continue to conduct our operations so that neither we nor any of our subsidiaries are required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. Because we are a holding company that conducts our businesses primarily through wholly-owned subsidiaries, the securities issued by these subsidiaries that are excepted from the definition of “investment company” under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, together with any other investment securities we own, may not have a combined value in excess of 40% of the value of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis. The term “investment securities” generally includes all securities except cash, investments in U.S. money market funds, U.S. government securities and securities of majority-owned subsidiaries that are not themselves investment companies and are not relying on the exemption from the definition of investment company under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. This requirement limits the types of businesses in which we may engage through our subsidiaries. In addition, the assets we and our subsidiaries may acquire are limited by the provisions of the Investment Company Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Investment Company Act, which may adversely affect our performance.

If the value of securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excepted from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, together with any other investment securities we own, exceeds 40% of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis, or if one or more of such subsidiaries fail to maintain an exception or exemption from the Investment Company Act, we could, among other things, be required either (i) to substantially change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company or (ii) to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, either of which could have an adverse effect on us and the market price of our securities. If we were required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to our capital structure (including our ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the Investment Company Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, and other matters.

The Investment Company 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 Investment Company Act defines voting securities as any security presently entitling the owner or holder thereof to vote for the election of directors of a company. We treat entities in which we own at least 50% of the outstanding voting securities as majority-owned subsidiaries for purposes of the 40% test referenced above. We have not requested that the SEC or its staff approve our treatment of any entity as a majority-owned subsidiary, and neither has done so. If the SEC or its staff was to disagree with our treatment of one or more subsidiary entities as majority-owned subsidiaries, we would need to adjust our strategy and our assets in order to continue to pass the 40% test.

Many of our subsidiaries rely on the exclusion from the definition of an investment company under Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company 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 exclusion, as interpreted by the SEC staff, generally requires that at least 55% of a subsidiary’s portfolio must be comprised of qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of its portfolio must be comprised of qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets (and no more than 20% comprised of miscellaneous assets). In addition, certain of our subsidiaries in our Infrastructure Lending Segment may seek to rely, among other things, on the exceptions from the definition of “investment company” contained in Section 3(c)(5)(A) or Section 3(c)(5)(B) of the Investment Company Act.  Section 3(c)(5)(A) provides an exception from the definition of “investment company” for entities that are primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring notes, drafts, acceptances, open accounts receivable, and other obligations representing part or all of the sales price of merchandise, insurance, and services.  Section 3(c)(5)(B) excepts from the definition of “investment company” entities that are primarily engaged in the business of making loans to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and prospective purchasers of specified merchandise, insurance or services.

As with other provisions of the Investment Company Act, including Section 3(c)(5)(C), reliance on Sections 3(c)(5)(A) and/or 3(c)(5)(B) is based in large part on the nature of the assets held by the relevant entities, and we have analyzed the availability of Section 3(c)(5)(A) and/or 3(c)(5)(B) to certain of our subsidiaries in the Infrastructure Lending Segment based on guidance from the SEC staff on the types of assets that qualify an entity to rely on either exception.  However, the SEC guidance is somewhat limited in this area and the SEC may in the future issue additional guidance through no action letters or otherwise, and there can be no assurance that the assets of our subsidiaries in the Infrastructure Lending Segment will conform to such guidance.

In that regard, to the extent that any of such subsidiaries can no longer rely on the above Sections, such subsidiaries may be required to rely on other exceptions from the definition of “investment company”, such as Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7), in which case we will need to treat our holdings therein as investment securities for purposes of the 40% test described above, or otherwise change the manner in which they conduct operations. Any such change could have an adverse effect on the performance of such subsidiaries and their ability to conduct their operations as currently contemplated.

The SEC has periodically solicited public comment on a wide range of issues relating to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act, including the nature of the assets that qualify for purposes of the exemption and whether mortgage REITs should be regulated in a manner similar to investment companies. The laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of REITs, including the Division of Investment Management of the SEC providing more specific or different guidance regarding these exemptions, could change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If we or our subsidiaries fail to maintain an exception or exemption from the Investment Company Act, we could, among other things, be required 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 (which, among other things, would require us to comply with the leverage constraints applicable to investment companies), any of which could negatively affect the value of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders, which could, in turn, materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

If the market value or income potential of real estate-related or other investments declines as a result of increased interest rates, prepayment rates or other factors, including changes in carrying value of certain assets made in accordance with CECL, we may need to increase our real estate investments and income and/or liquidate our non-qualifying assets in order to maintain our REIT qualification or exemption from the Investment Company Act. Moreover, we may have to take similar action if the market value or income potential of any investment securities that we own increases. If the change in real estate or other asset values and/or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish. This difficulty may be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of any non-qualifying assets that we may own. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent the REIT and Investment Company Act considerations.

Under Maryland law generally, a director’s actions will be upheld if he or she performs his or her duties in good faith, in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in our best interests and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. In addition, our charter limits the liability of our directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages, except for liability resulting from:

Our charter authorizes us to indemnify our directors and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Our bylaws require us to indemnify each director or officer, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, in the defense of any proceeding to which he or she is made, or threatened to be made, a party by reason of his or her service to us. In addition, we may be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers. As a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights against our directors and officers than might otherwise exist absent the current provisions in our charter and bylaws or that might exist with other companies.

Our charter provides that a director may only be removed for cause upon the affirmative vote of holders of two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast in the election of directors. Vacancies may be filled only by a majority of the remaining directors in office, even if less than a quorum. These requirements make it more difficult to change our management by removing and replacing directors and may prevent a change in control of our company that is in the best interests of our stockholders.

In order for us to qualify as a REIT, no more than 50% in value of our outstanding capital stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals during the last half of any calendar year. “Individuals” for this purpose include natural persons, private foundations, some employee benefit plans and trusts, and some charitable trusts. To preserve our REIT qualification, our charter generally prohibits any person from directly or indirectly owning more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of our capital stock or more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of our common stock. This ownership limitation could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests.

We intend to continue to operate in a manner that will allow us to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We have not requested nor obtained a ruling from the IRS as to our REIT qualification. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions for which only limited judicial and administrative authorities exist. Even a technical or inadvertent violation could jeopardize our REIT qualification. Our qualification as a REIT depends on our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends upon our analysis of the characterization and fair values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we will not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our analysis of the character of our income and our ability to successfully manage the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Moreover, the proper classification of an instrument as debt or equity for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be uncertain in some circumstances, which could affect the application of the REIT qualification requirements as described below. In addition, our ability to satisfy the requirements to qualify as a REIT depends in part on the actions of third parties over which we have no control or only limited influence, including in cases where we own an equity interest in an entity that is classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not contend that our interests in subsidiaries or in securities of other issuers will not cause a violation of the REIT requirements.

The maximum tax rate applicable to “qualified dividends” payable by regular U.S. corporations to domestic stockholders that are individuals, trusts or estates is currently 20%. Dividends payable by REITs generally are not eligible for that reduced rate. However, pursuant to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, such domestic stockholders may generally be allowed to deduct from their taxable income one-fifth of the ordinary dividends payable to them by REITs for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2026. This would amount to a reduction in the effective tax rate on REIT dividends as compared to prior law. To qualify for this deduction, the domestic stockholder receiving such dividend must hold the dividend-paying REIT shares for at least 46 days (taking into account certain special holding period rules) of the 91-day period beginning 45 days before the shares become ex-dividend, and cannot be under an obligation to make related payments with respect to a position in substantially similar or related property.

However, the more favorable rates that will nevertheless continue to apply to regular corporate qualified dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts or estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive as a federal income tax matter than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including ours.

We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our taxable income, subject to certain adjustments and excluding any net capital gain, in order for U.S. federal corporate income tax not to apply to earnings that we distribute. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our stockholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under U.S. federal tax laws. We intend to continue to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the REIT requirements of the Code.

We may also be required under the terms of indebtedness that we incur to use cash received from interest payments to make principal payments on that indebtedness, with the effect of recognizing income but not having a corresponding amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

As a result, we may find it difficult or impossible to meet distribution requirements from our ordinary operations in certain circumstances. In particular, where we experience differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash, the requirement to distribute a substantial portion of our taxable income could cause us to: (i) sell assets in adverse market conditions, (ii) borrow on unfavorable terms, (iii) distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt or (iv) make a taxable distribution of our shares, as part of a distribution in which stockholders may elect to receive shares (subject to a limit measured as a percentage of the total distribution), in order to comply with REIT requirements. These alternatives could increase our costs or reduce our equity. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to grow, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

We may in the future distribute taxable dividends that are payable in cash and shares of our common stock at the election of each stockholder. We may also determine to distribute a taxable dividend in the stock of a subsidiary in connection with a spin-off or other transaction. Taxable stockholders receiving such distributions will be required to include the full amount of the distribution as ordinary income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, stockholders may be required to pay income taxes with respect to such dividends in excess of the cash dividends received. If a U.S. stockholder sells the stock that it receives as a dividend in order to pay this tax, the sale proceeds may be less than the amount included in income with respect to the dividend, depending on the market price of that stock at the time of the sale. Furthermore, with respect to certain non-U.S. stockholders, we may be required to withhold U.S.

In order for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT under the Code, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities) at any time during the last half of each taxable year following our first year. Our charter, with certain exceptions, authorizes our board of directors to take the actions that are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Unless exempted by our board of directors, no person may own more than 9.8% of the aggregate value of our outstanding capital stock. Our board may grant an exemption in its sole discretion, subject to such conditions, representations and undertakings as it may determine. The ownership limits imposed by the tax law are based upon direct or indirect ownership by “individuals,” but only during the last half of a tax year. The ownership limits contained in our charter key off the ownership at any time by any “person,” which term includes entities. These ownership limitations in our charter are common in REIT charters and are intended to provide added assurance of compliance with the tax law requirements, and to minimize administrative burdens. However, these ownership limits might also delay or prevent a transaction or a change in our control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

To qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must satisfy ongoing tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts that we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. We may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution, and may be unable to pursue investments that would be otherwise advantageous to us in order to satisfy the source-of-income or asset-diversification requirements for qualifying as a REIT. In addition, in certain cases, the modification of a debt instrument could result in the conversion of the instrument from a qualifying real estate asset to a wholly or partially non-qualifying asset that must be contributed to a TRS or disposed of in order for us to maintain our REIT status. Compliance with the source-of-income requirements may also limit our ability to acquire debt instruments at a discount from their face amount. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to make, and in certain cases to maintain ownership of, certain attractive investments.

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

We have entered into financing arrangements that are structured as sale and repurchase agreements pursuant to which we would nominally sell certain of our assets to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase these assets at a later date in exchange for a purchase price. Economically, these agreements are financings which are secured by the assets sold pursuant thereto. We believe that we would be treated for REIT asset and income test purposes as the owner of the assets that are the subject of any such sale and repurchase agreement notwithstanding that such agreement may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could assert that we did not own the assets during the term of the sale and repurchase agreement, in which case we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

We may acquire debt instruments in the secondary market for less than their face amount. The discount at which such debt instruments are acquired may reflect doubts about their ultimate collectability rather than current market interest rates. The amount of such discount will nevertheless generally be treated as “market discount” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Under the rules applicable in reporting market discount as income, such market discount may have to be included in income as if the debt instruments were assured of being collected in full. If we ultimately collect less on the debt instruments than our purchase price plus the market discount we had previously reported as income, we may not be able to benefit from any offsetting loss deductions. In addition, we may acquire distressed debt investments that are subsequently modified by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding debt are “significant modifications” under applicable U.S. Treasury regulations, the modified debt may be considered to have been reissued to us at a gain in a debt-for-debt exchange with the borrower. In that event, we may be required to recognize taxable gain to the extent the principal amount of the modified debt exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified debt, even if the value of the debt or the payment expectations have not changed.

Moreover, some of the MBS that we acquire may have been issued with original issue discount. We will be required to report such original issue discount based on a constant yield method and will be taxed based on the assumption that all future projected payments due on such MBS will be made. If such MBS turns out not to be fully collectible, an offsetting loss deduction will become available only in the later year that uncollectability is provable.

Finally, in the event that any debt instruments or MBS acquired by us are delinquent as to mandatory principal and interest payments, or in the event payments with respect to a particular debt instrument are not made when due, we may nonetheless be required to continue to recognize the unpaid interest as taxable income as it accrues, despite doubt as to its ultimate collectability. Similarly, we may be required to accrue interest income with respect to subordinate MBS at its stated rate regardless of whether corresponding cash payments are received or are ultimately collectible. In each case, while we would in general ultimately have an offsetting loss deduction available to us when such interest was determined to be uncollectible, the utility of that deduction could depend on our having taxable income in that later year or thereafter.

We own and may acquire direct or indirect interests in one or more entities that have elected or will elect to be taxed as REITs under the Code (each, a “Subsidiary REIT”). A Subsidiary REIT is subject to the various REIT qualification requirements and other limitations described herein that are applicable to us. If a Subsidiary REIT were to fail to qualify as a REIT, then (i) that Subsidiary REIT would become subject to U.S. federal income tax and applicable state and local taxes on its taxable income at regular corporate rates, (ii) the Subsidiary REIT’s failure to so qualify could have an adverse effect on our ability to comply with the REIT income and asset tests, and thus could impair our ability to qualify as a REIT unless we could avail ourselves of certain relief provisions and (iii) such failure could also cause certain entities owned by the Subsidiary REIT that are intended to be treated as “qualified REIT subsidiaries” (or otherwise as disregarded) to be treated as taxable mortgage pools (“TMPs”), which could cause adverse tax and other adverse consequences.

Securitizations in the form of bonds or notes secured principally by mortgage loans generally result in the creation of TMPs for U.S. federal income tax purposes.  The debt securities issued by TMPs are sometimes referred to as “collateralized mortgage obligations” (“CMOs”), which include CLOs.  We have issued CLOs through TMPs.  Unless a TMP is wholly-owned by a REIT, it is subject to taxation as a corporation.  However, so long as a REIT owns 100% of the equity interests in a TMP, the TMP will not be taxed as a corporation.  Instead, certain categories of the REIT’s stockholders, such as foreign stockholders eligible for treaty or sovereign benefits, stockholders with net operating losses, and generally tax-exempt stockholders that are

In order to control better, and to attempt to avoid, the distribution of “excess inclusions” to our stockholders, all of our TMPs are wholly-owned by a Subsidiary REIT that has elected to be treated as a REIT. Our Subsidiary REIT is required to satisfy, on a stand-alone basis, the REIT asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements described above, and if it were to fail to qualify as a REIT, then our Subsidiary REIT would face adverse tax consequences similar to those described above with respect to our qualification as a REIT and, as described above, failure could have an adverse effect on our ability to comply with the REIT income and asset tests and thus could impair our ability to qualify as a REIT unless we could avail ourselves of certain relief provisions.  

Because our TMPs must at all times be owned by a REIT, we are restricted from selling equity interests in it, or selling any notes or bonds issued by it that might be considered to be equity for tax purposes, to other investors if doing so would subject it to taxation. These restrictions limit the liquidity of our investments in our TMPs and may prevent us from incurring greater leverage on that investment in order to maximize our returns from it.

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

We invest in construction loans, the interest from which is qualifying income for purposes of the REIT income tests, provided that the loan value of the real property securing the construction loan is equal to or greater than the highest outstanding principal amount of the construction loan during any taxable year. For purposes of construction loans, the loan value of the real property is the fair value of the land plus the reasonably estimated cost of the improvements or developments (other than personal property) that secure the loan and that are to be constructed from the proceeds of the loan. There can be no assurance that the IRS would not challenge our estimate of the loan value of the real property.

We invest in mezzanine loans, for which the IRS has provided a safe harbor but not rules of substantive law. Pursuant to the safe harbor, if a mezzanine loan meets certain requirements, it will be treated by the IRS as a real estate asset for purposes of the REIT asset tests, and interest derived from the mezzanine loan will be treated as qualifying mortgage interest for purposes of the REIT 75% income test. We may acquire mezzanine loans that do not meet all of the requirements of this safe harbor. In the event we own a mezzanine loan that does not meet the safe harbor, the IRS could challenge such loan’s treatment as a real estate asset for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests and, if such a challenge were sustained, we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

To qualify as a REIT, we must comply with requirements regarding our assets and our sources of income. If we are compelled to liquidate our investments to repay obligations to our lenders, we may be unable to comply with these requirements, ultimately jeopardizing our qualification as a REIT, or we may be subject to a 100% tax on any resultant gain if we sell assets that are treated as dealer property or inventory.

The REIT provisions of the Code substantially limit our ability to hedge our assets and liabilities. Any income from a hedging transaction we enter into either (i) to manage risk of interest rate or price changes with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or carry real estate assets, (ii) to manage risk of currency fluctuations with respect to items of income that qualify for purposes of the REIT 75% or 95% gross income tests or assets that generate such income or (iii) to hedge another instrument that hedges risks described in clause (i) or (ii) for a period following the extinguishment of the liability or the disposition of the asset that was previously hedged by the instrument, and provided that, in each case, the applicable hedging instrument is properly identified under applicable U.S. Treasury regulations, does not constitute “gross income” for purposes of

In connection with U.S. federal income tax audits of partnerships (such as certain of our subsidiaries) and the collection of any tax resulting from any such audits or other tax proceedings, the partnership itself may be liable for partner-level taxes (including interest and penalties) resulting from an adjustment of partnership tax items on audit, regardless of changes in the composition of the partners (or their relative ownership) between the year under audit and the year of the adjustment.  The rules also include an elective alternative method under which the additional taxes resulting from the adjustment are assessed from the affected partners, subject to a higher rate of interest than otherwise would apply.  Although regulations have been issued and address some aspects of these rules, questions remain as to how they will apply.  These rules could increase the U.S. federal income tax, interest, and/or penalties economically borne by us in the event of a U.S. federal income tax audit of a subsidiary partnership in comparison to prior law.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Changes to the tax laws, with or without retroactive application, could materially and adversely affect us and our stockholders. We cannot predict how changes in the tax laws might affect us or our stockholders. New legislation, U.S. Treasury regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions could significantly and negatively affect our ability to qualify as a REIT or the U.S. federal income tax consequences of such qualification.

The SEC, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“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.

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.

Our Manager is authorized to follow very broad investment guidelines which enable our Manager to make investments on our behalf in a wide array of assets. Our board of directors will periodically review our investment guidelines and our

New investments may not be profitable (or as profitable as we expect), may increase our exposure to certain industries, may increase our exposure to interest rate, foreign currency, real estate market or credit market fluctuations, may divert managerial attention from more profitable opportunities and may require significant financial resources. A change in our investment strategy may also increase any guarantee obligations we agree to incur or increase the number of transactions we enter into with affiliates. Moreover, new investments may present risks that are difficult for us to adequately assess, given our lack of familiarity with a particular type of investment. The risks related to new investments or the financing risks associated with such investments could adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity, and could impair our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our board of directors has in the past and may in the future at any time change one or more of our investment strategy or guidelines, financing strategy or leverage policies with respect to investments, acquisitions, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization and distributions without the consent of our stockholders, which could result in an investment portfolio with a different risk profile. Any change in our investment strategy may increase our exposure to interest rate risk, default risk and real estate market fluctuations. These changes could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, the market price of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We operate in a highly competitive market for investment opportunities. Our profitability depends, in large part, on our ability to acquire our target assets at attractive prices. In acquiring our target assets, we compete with a variety of institutional investors, including other REITs, commercial and investment banks, specialty finance companies, public and private funds (including other funds managed by Starwood Capital Group), commercial finance and insurance companies and other financial institutions. Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do. Several other REITs have raised significant amounts of capital and may have investment objectives that overlap with ours, which may create additional competition for investment opportunities. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that may not be available to us, such as funding from the U.S. government, if we are not eligible to participate in programs established by the U.S. government. Many of our competitors are not subject to the operating constraints associated with REIT tax compliance or maintenance of an exemption from the Investment Company 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 investments and establish more relationships than we do. Furthermore, competition for investments in our target assets may lead to the price of such assets increasing, which may further limit our ability to generate desired returns. We cannot assure you that the competitive pressures we face will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. 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 continue to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities from time to time, as we may not be able to identify and make additional investments that are consistent with our investment objectives.

Our operations are dependent on information systems and technology, and we rely heavily on our financial, accounting, communications and other data processing systems. Such systems may fail to operate properly or become disabled as a result of tampering or a breach of the network security systems or otherwise. Our network systems and storage applications, and those systems and storage and other business applications maintained by our third party providers, may be subject to attempts to gain unauthorized access, breach, malfeasance or other system disruptions.

Cybersecurity incidents and cyber-attacks, ransomware attacks, and social engineering attempts (including business email compromise attacks) have been occurring globally at a more frequent and severe level and will likely continue to increase in frequency in the future. There have been a number of recent highly publicized cases involving the dissemination, theft and destruction of corporate information as a result of a failure to follow procedures by employees or contractors or as a result of actions by a variety of third parties. There can be no assurance that the measures we take to ensure the integrity of our systems will provide protection, especially because cyberattack techniques used change frequently, may persist undetected over extended periods of time, and may not be mitigated in a timely manner to prevent or minimize the impact of an attack. The loss, disclosure or misappropriation of, or unauthorized access to, information or our failure to meet our obligations could result in legal claims or proceedings, penalties and remediation costs. See “Item 1C. Cybersecurity” in this Form 10-K for a discussion of how we address these cybersecurity risks.

Natural disasters and severe weather such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes or floods may result in significant damage to the properties securing our loans or in which we invest. In addition, our investments may be exposed to new or increased risks and liabilities associated with global climate change, such as increased frequency or intensity of adverse weather and natural disasters, which could negatively impact our and our borrowers’ businesses and the value of the properties securing our loans or in which we invest. The extent of our or our borrowers’ casualty losses and loss in operating income in connection with such events is a function of the severity of the event and the total amount of exposure in the affected area. When we have geographic concentration of exposures, a single catastrophe (such as an earthquake) or destructive weather event (such as a hurricane) affecting a region may have a significant negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We may be materially and adversely affected by our exposure to losses arising from natural disasters or severe weather, including those associated with global climate change.

In addition, global climate change concerns could result in additional legislation and regulatory requirements, including those associated with the transition to a low-carbon economy, which could increase expenses or otherwise adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition, or the business, results of operations and financial condition of our borrowers.

Our business faces increasing public scrutiny related to environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) matters. In particular, shareholder, public and governmental expectations have been increasing with respect to ESG activities, including with respect to corporate responsibility, sustainability, diversity, equity and inclusion and climate change. A number of organizations measure the performance of companies on various ESG topics, and the results of these assessments may be widely-publicized and may change frequently. Shareholders and prospective investors may use these assessments to, among other matters, determine whether to invest in our securities, engage with us to advocate for improved ESG performance or disclosure, make voting decisions, or take other actions to hold us and our board of directors accountable with respect to ESG matters. We also face reputational damage in the event we or our Manager does not meet the ESG-related standards or expectations of shareholders, prospective investors or other stakeholders, or if we are unable to achieve acceptable ESG assessments from third parties.

In addition, new laws or regulations may be enacted that require certain ESG-related disclosures or performance. Compliance with any such new laws or regulations would increase our regulatory burden, and compliance could be difficult and expensive. The failure to comply with any ESG-related laws or regulations could materially and adversely impact the value of our stock and limit our ability to fund future growth, or result in investigations or litigation, or the threat thereof.

The stock markets, including the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”), which is the exchange on which our common stock is listed, have experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. In the past, overall weakness in the economy and other factors have contributed to extreme volatility of the equity markets generally, including the market price of our common stock. As a result, the market price of our common stock has been and may continue to be volatile, and investors in our common stock may experience a decrease in the value of their shares, including decreases unrelated to our operating performance or prospects. Some of the factors that could negatively affect our stock price or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our common stock include: