Rithm Capital (RITM) 10-K2023 FY Annual report

This report contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which statements involve substantial risks and uncertainties. Such forward-looking statements relate to, among other things, the operating performance of our investments, the stability of our earnings, our financing needs and the size and attractiveness of market opportunities. Forward-looking statements are generally identifiable by use of forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “will,” “plan,” “should,” “potential,” “intend,” “expect,” “endeavor,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “overestimate,” “underestimate,” “believe,” “could,” “project,” “predict,” “continue” or other similar words or expressions. Forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions, discuss future expectations, describe future plans and strategies, contain projections of results of operations, cash flows or financial condition or state other forward-looking information. Our ability to predict results or the actual outcome of future plans or strategies is inherently limited. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, our actual results, activities and performance could differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results in future periods to differ materially from forecasted results.

Our ability to implement our business strategy is subject to numerous risks, and the following is only a summary of the principal risks that may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. The following should be read in conjunction with the more complete discussion of risk factors we face, which are set forth under Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors.” These risks include, among others:

In reviewing the agreements included as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, please remember they are included to provide you with information regarding their terms and are not intended to provide any other factual or disclosure information about Rithm Capital Corp. (the “Company,” “Rithm Capital” or “we,” “our” and “us”) or the other parties to the agreements. The agreements contain representations and warranties by each of the parties to the applicable agreement. These representations and warranties have been made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the applicable agreement and:

The Company acknowledges that, notwithstanding the inclusion of the foregoing cautionary statements, it is responsible for considering whether additional specific disclosures of material information regarding material contractual provisions are required to make the statements in this report not misleading.

Rithm Capital Corp. (together with its consolidated subsidiaries, “Rithm Capital,” “the Company,” “we,” “us” or “our”) is a global asset manager focused on real estate, credit and financial services. Rithm Capital is a Delaware corporation that was formed as a limited liability company in September 2011 (commenced operations in December 2011) and, since June 17, 2022, has been structured as an internally managed REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

For more details on our portfolio, see “—Our Portfolio” below, as well as “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Our Portfolio.” For information concerning current market trends which impact our portfolio, see “—The Residential Real Estate Market,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Market Considerations” and “—Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

We believe we are one of only a select number of non-bank market participants that have the combination of capital, infrastructure, industry expertise and business relationships necessary to leverage opportunities existing in today’s complex and dynamic mortgage market. Our ability to originate and service residential mortgage loans positions us to support, connect with and provide solutions to homeowners throughout the lifetime of their residential mortgage loan.

Over the last few decades, the complexity and composition of the market for residential mortgage loans in the U.S. have dramatically evolved. In the past, a borrower seeking credit for a home purchase would typically have obtained financing from a financial institution, such as a bank, savings association or credit union. These institutions would generally have held a majority of their originated residential mortgage loans as interest-earning assets on their balance sheets and would have performed all activities associated with servicing the loans, including accepting principal and interest payments, making advances for real estate taxes and homeowners’ insurance premiums, initiating collection actions for delinquent payments and conducting foreclosures.

Now, institutions (including non-bank originators) that originate residential mortgage loans generally hold a smaller portion of originated loans as assets on their balance sheets and instead sell originated loans to third parties. The GSEs are currently the largest purchasers of residential mortgage loans. Under a process known as securitization, GSEs and institutions typically package residential mortgage loans into pools that are sold to securitization trusts. These securitization trusts fund the acquisition of residential mortgage loans by issuing securities, known as residential mortgage-backed securities or RMBS, which entitle the owner of such securities to receive a portion of the interest and/or principal collected on the residential mortgage loans in the pool. The purchasers of the RMBS are typically large institutions, such as pension funds, mutual funds, insurance companies, hedge funds and REITs. The agreement that governs the pooling of residential mortgage loans, the servicing of such residential mortgage loans and the terms of the RMBS issued by the securitization trust is often referred to as a pooling and servicing agreement. As the securitization market has matured, non-bank originators have gained significant market share in the residential mortgage market.

In connection with a securitization, a number of entities perform specific roles with respect to the residential mortgage loans in a pool, including the trustee and the mortgage servicer. The trustee holds legal title to the residential mortgage loans on behalf of the owner of the RMBS and either maintains the mortgage note and related documents itself or with a custodian. One or more other entities are appointed pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement to service the residential mortgage loans. In some cases, the servicer is the same institution that originated the loan, and, in other cases, it may be a different institution. The duties of servicers of residential mortgage loans that have been securitized are generally required to be performed in accordance with industry-accepted servicing practices and the terms of the relevant pooling and servicing agreement, mortgage note and applicable law. The trustee or a separate securities administrator for the trust receives the payments collected by the servicer on the residential mortgage loans and distributes payments pursuant to the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement. A servicer generally takes actions, such as foreclosure, in the name and on behalf of the trustee.

The residential mortgage loan market is commonly divided into a number of categories based on certain residential mortgage loan characteristics, including the credit quality of borrowers and the types of institutions that originate or finance such loans. While there are no universally accepted definitions, the residential mortgage loan market is commonly divided by market participants into the following categories:

operated by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”).

Residential mortgage loans are further classified based on certain payment characteristics. Performing loans are residential mortgage loans where the borrower is generally current on required payments. By contrast, non-performing loans are residential mortgage loans where the borrower is delinquent or in default. Re-performing loans were formally non-performing but became performing again, often as a result of a loan modification where the lender agrees to modified terms with the borrower rather than foreclosing on the underlying property. Reverse residential mortgage loans are a special type of loan under which the borrower is typically paid a monthly amount, increasing the balance of the loan, and balances are then typically collected when the property is sold or the borrower no longer resides at the property. If a borrower defaults on a loan and the lender takes ownership of the underlying property through foreclosure, that property is referred to as real estate owned (“REO”).

The volume of mortgage loan originations associated with home purchases is generally affected by the overall strength of the economy, interest rates, housing pricing and unemployment rates. Due to a variety of factors, including supply and demand imbalances exacerbated by the geopolitical risks, including risks associated with the ongoing war and tensions in the Middle East and the war in Ukraine, inflation throughout 2023 remained elevated. As a response to these inflationary pressures, the Federal Reserve raised the federal funds rate multiple times during the first half of the year. The market’s transition away from a historically low interest rate environment to a higher interest rate environment significantly disrupted the residential mortgage market, as it affected the cost savings benefit associated with refinancing residential mortgages, as well as potential homebuyers’ ability to afford and qualify for a mortgage loan. As of December 2023, the Mortgage Bankers Association (“MBA”) estimated total U.S. origination volume for 2023 was $1.6 trillion, down 25% from an estimated $2.2 trillion in 2022. Furthermore, the MBA estimated that 19% of 2023 activity was related to refinance volume, a decline from 30% in 2022. Looking forward, the MBA forecasts origination volumes to increase 22% in 2024 to $2.0 trillion, with a 16% increase in purchase volume and a 50% increase in refinance volume.

Mortgage originators primarily generate their revenue from the sale of originated loans to the GSEs and Ginnie Mae. During 2023, gain on sale margin continued to revert to historical levels largely driven by weakening demand for loans amid excess industry capacity due to a higher interest rate environment weighing on the residential real estate market.

On the other hand, servicers generally derive their income from the contractual fees earned for servicing loans and ancillary revenue such as late fees and modification incentives. The servicing fee, along with ancillary income and other revenue, is designed to cover costs incurred to service the specified pool plus a reasonable margin. A portion of the margin is often referred to as the excess servicing fee. Servicing income is affected by the size of the servicing portfolio, both UPB and number of loans, delinquency rates and cost to service per loan.

The need for “high-touch” non-bank specialty servicers remains elevated as borrowers continue to seek solutions to their financial hardships. Specialty servicers have proven more willing and more well-equipped to perform the operationally intensive activities (e.g., collections, foreclosure avoidance and loan workouts) required to service credit-sensitive loans.

The SFR industry was previously primarily composed of private and individual investors in local markets and was managed individually or by small, non-institutional owners and property managers. More recently the increase in demand for SFR properties has attracted higher capital inflows into the SFR industry from institutional investors, including REITs, looking to diversify and consolidate the highly fragmented industry. This increase in consumer SFR demand over the past several years is the result of changing demographics, increased acceptance of telework, higher mortgage rates and elevated home prices. These factors together have resulted in SFR properties becoming a popular lifestyle choice for families looking for the comforts and amenities associated with homeownership, but the flexibility and ease of use offered by renting. Further, we believe the fundamental long-term shortage of affordable housing in the U.S. has also contributed to the increased popularity of SFR properties.

Our expectation is that the demand for SFR will continue, and we therefore believe there are attractive opportunities in the SFR sector. Using our established experience with residential real estate and our consumer-facing expertise, we believe we are well-positioned to benefit from these compelling trends in SFR.

Our current investment portfolio primarily consists of:

The following table summarizes our consolidated portfolio as of December 31, 2023 (dollars in thousands):

Over time, we expect to opportunistically adjust our portfolio composition in response to market conditions.

During 2023, our servicing and origination businesses operated through our wholly-owned subsidiaries Newrez and Caliber Home Loans Inc. (“Caliber”, and together with Newrez, the “Mortgage Company”). The integration of Caliber operations was completed in the fourth quarter of 2023 and as such all Mortgage Company operations are within Newrez as of December 31, 2023.

Purchase origination consists of mortgages that are originated to purchase a property. Refinance origination consists of mortgages that are originated to refinance an existing outstanding mortgage. Our ability to originate loans in both purchase and refinance markets is an important component of our business model. 87% of our funded origination volume during 2023 was purchase origination, up from 70% in 2022.

Our Mortgage Company originates or purchases residential mortgage loans conforming to the underwriting standards of the Agencies (“Agency” loans), government-insured residential mortgage loans insured by the FHA, VA and USDA and non-conforming loans through its SMART Loan Series. Our SMART Loan Series is a non-qualified residential mortgage (“Non-QM”) product that provides a variety of options for highly qualified borrowers who fall outside the specific requirements of Agency residential mortgage loans. Through this platform, we underwrite quality loans that meet our guidelines and pricing models for borrowers that fall just outside the qualified mortgage requirement such as self-employed borrowers, bank statement or asset qualifiers, real estate investors, prime borrowers and more. We believe the outlook for Non-QM loans remains strong heading into 2024 supported by continued demand for Non-QM products and a growth in population of Non-QM borrowers. In 2023, 55% of our Mortgage Company’s funded production was Agency, 42% was Government, 1% was Non-Agency, and 1% was Non-QM loans.

Our Mortgage Company generates revenue through sales of residential mortgage loans, including, but not limited to, gain on residential loans originated and sold, the settlement of residential mortgage loan origination derivative instruments and the value of MSRs retained on transfer of the loans. Profit margins per loan vary by channel, with Correspondent typically being the lowest and Retail being the highest. The Mortgage Company sells conforming loans to the GSEs and Non-QM residential loans to another subsidiary of Rithm Capital which in turn may securitize these loans. Our Mortgage Company relies on warehouse financing to fund loans at origination through the sale date. During the year ended December 31, 2023, we securitized $670.3 million of Non-QM residential loans.

We believe that our multi-channel origination mortgage platform provides us with a competitive advantage and enables us to provide our borrowers within the mortgage community with various products to ultimately originate both purchase and refinance loans across different market backdrops. Furthermore, we generally service all of the loans that we originate, which provides us with connectivity with our borrowers throughout the lifecycle of their loan. We combine operational excellence, modern proprietary technology, capital markets expertise, prudent risk management and a relentless focus on client service to deliver consistent high-quality service to our customers in both our origination and servicing businesses.

differentiated products and pricing, as well as superior customer service through our experienced salesforce and our proprietary technologies. For the year ended December 31, 2023, we originated $4.8 billion in Wholesale originations, representing 13% of our total funded origination volume.

Our servicing business consists of collecting loan payments, remitting principal and interest payments to investors, managing escrow funds for the payment of mortgage-related expenses, such as taxes and insurance, performing loss mitigation activities, negotiating workouts and modifications, conducting or managing foreclosures on behalf of investors or other servicers and otherwise administering our residential mortgage loan servicing portfolio. We generate recurring revenue through contractual servicing fees, which include late payment, modification and other ancillary fees and interest income on custodial deposits.

Our servicing business operates through our performing loan servicing division and a special servicing division, Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing (“SMS”). The performing loan servicing division services performing Agency and government-insured loans. SMS services delinquent government-insured, Agency and Non-Agency loans on behalf of the owners of the underlying residential mortgage loans. We are highly experienced in loan servicing, including loan modifications and seek to help borrowers avoid foreclosure.

The SMS special servicing division also includes third-party serviced loans on behalf of unaffiliated investors. As of December 31, 2023, SMS had 59 third-party clients. These institutional clients include, but are not limited to, GSEs, money center banks and whole loan investors. Through our servicing platform, we are focused on providing high-quality servicing to our clients and maintaining connectivity with our borrowers throughout the lifetime of their loan. As of December 31, 2023, our servicing divisions served over 2.7 million customers with an aggregate UPB of approximately $568.0 billion, of which $445.8 billion represented performing servicing and $122.2 billion represented special servicing.

As a third-party subservicer, SMS may be obligated to make servicing advances; however, advances and other incurred costs are generally lower compared to those of the MSR owner and recovery times are substantially faster, often within the following month.

We also have several wholly-owned subsidiaries that perform various services in the mortgage and real estate industries. Our subsidiary Avenue 365 Lender Services, LLC (“Avenue 365”) is a title agency providing title and settlement services to homeowners. Our subsidiary eStreet Appraisal Management LLC (“eStreet”) is an appraisal management company that performs appraisal and valuation services. Our subsidiary DGG RE Investments LLC d/b/a Guardian Asset Management (“Guardian”) is a national provider of field services and property management services, providing in-house property management, inspection and repair service capabilities.

Servicer advances are a customary feature of residential mortgage securitization transactions and represent one of the duties for which a servicer is compensated since the advances are non-interest-bearing. Servicer advances are generally reimbursable payments made by a servicer (i) when the borrower fails to make scheduled payments due on a residential mortgage loan or (ii) to support the value of the collateral property. Our interests in servicer advances include the following:

Servicer advances typically fall into one of three categories:

The purpose of the advances is to provide liquidity, rather than credit enhancement, to the underlying residential mortgage securitization transaction. Most servicer advances are considered “top of the waterfall” and are generally repaid from amounts received from the related residential mortgage loan pool, and to a lesser extent, payments from the borrower or amounts received from the liquidation of the property securing the loan, which is referred to as “loan-level recovery.”

We fund advances primarily from a combination of cash on hand, loan prepayments and secured financing arrangements. Loan prepayments made by the borrowers on the residential mortgage loans underlying the securitizations can only be used to fund principal and interest advances. The servicing agreements with Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae and certain private label securitizations (“PLS”) generally have a “waterfall” payment structure that allows servicers to apply balances received from prepayments to cover principal and interest advance requirements. The ability to apply balances received against prepayments stems from a difference caused by the timing between the remittance of payments under the servicer’s advance and remittance obligations, generally several weeks after the due date, and servicer’s timeline to remit prepayments, which can be up to a month or more after receipt from the borrower. Because of this timing difference, servicers can effectively “borrow” against the prepayments received to cover principal and interest advance requirements. As of December 31, 2023, the carrying value of our servicer advance balances was $2.8 billion.

During any period in which a borrower is not making payments, a servicer is generally required under the applicable servicing agreement to advance its own funds to cover the principal and interest remittances due to investors in the loans, to pay property taxes and insurance premiums to third parties and to make payments for legal expenses and other protective advances. The servicer also advances funds to maintain, repair and market real estate properties on behalf of investors in the loans. Furthermore, servicing agreements generally require a servicer to make advances in respect of serviced residential mortgage loans unless the servicer determines in good faith that the advance would not be ultimately recoverable from the proceeds of the related residential mortgage loan or the mortgaged property. In many cases, if the servicer determines that an advance previously made would not be recoverable from these sources, or if such advance is not recovered when the loan is repaid or related property is liquidated, then the servicer is, most often, entitled to withdraw funds from the trustee custodial account for payments on the serviced residential mortgage loans to reimburse the applicable advance. This is what is often referred to as a “general collections backstop.” See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business—Servicer advances may not be recoverable or may take longer to recover than we expect, which could cause us to fail to achieve our targeted return on our servicer advance investments or MSRs.”

Residential mortgage loans are often packaged into pools held in securitization entities which issue RMBS collateralized by such loans. Agency RMBS are issued or guaranteed by an Agency. Non-Agency RMBS are issued by either public trusts or PLS entities. Agency RMBS generally offer more stable cash flows and historically have been subject to lower credit risk and greater price stability compared to PLS and Non-Agency investments. We invest in both Agency RMBS and Non-Agency RMBS. Our ownership of Agency RMBS is generally meant to act as a hedge to our large MSR portfolio and provide additional qualifying assets and income for the purposes of the REIT requirements. The Agency RMBS that we may acquire could be secured by fixed-rate mortgages, adjustable-rate mortgages or hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages. More information about certain types of Agency RMBS in which we have invested or may invest is set forth below.

The Non-Agency RMBS we may acquire could be secured by fixed-rate mortgages, adjustable-rate mortgages or hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages. The residential mortgage loan collateral may be classified as conforming or non-conforming, depending on a variety of factors.

We also retain and own risk retention bonds from our securitizations in conjunction with risk retention regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act. As of December 31, 2023, 53.9% of our Non-Agency RMBS portfolio consists of bonds retained pursuant to required risk retention regulations.

RMBS, and in particular Non-Agency RMBS, may be subject to call rights, commonly referred to as “cleanup call rights.” Call rights permit the holder of the rights to purchase all of the residential mortgage loans which are collateralizing the related securitization for a price generally equal to the outstanding balance of such loans plus interest and certain other amounts (such as outstanding servicer advances and unpaid servicing fees). Call rights may be subject to limitations with respect to when they may be exercised (such as specific dates or upon the reduction of the outstanding balances of the remaining residential mortgage loans to a specified level). Call rights generally become exercisable when the current principal balance of the underlying residential mortgage loans is equal to or lower than 10% of their original balance.

We pursue opportunities in structured transactions that enable us to realize identified excesses of collateral value over related RMBS value, particularly through the acquisition and execution of call rights. As of December 31, 2023, we control the call rights on Non-Agency deals with a total UPB of approximately $76.0 billion.

We continue to evaluate the call rights we acquired and our ability to exercise such rights and realize the benefits therefrom are subject to a number of risks. The timing, size and potential returns of future call transactions may be less attractive than our prior activity in this sector due to a number of factors, most of which are beyond our control. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business—Our ability to exercise our cleanup call rights may be limited or delayed if a third party contests our ability to

exercise our cleanup call rights, if the related securitization trustee refuses to permit the exercise of such rights, or if a related party is subject to bankruptcy proceedings.”

Our strategy with respect to the SFR business involves purchasing, renovating, maintaining and managing a large number of geographically diversified high-quality residential properties and leasing them to qualified tenants. As of December 31, 2023, our SFR portfolio consists of 3,888 units with an aggregate carrying value of $1.0 billion, up from 3,731 units with an aggregate carrying value of $971.3 million as of December 31, 2022. During the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, we acquired 182 and 1,196 SFR units, respectively.

Our ability to identify and acquire properties that meet our investment criteria is impacted by property prices in our target markets, the inventory of properties available, competition for our target assets and our available capital. Properties added to our portfolio through traditional acquisition channels require expenditures in addition to payment of the purchase price, including property inspections, closing costs, liens, title insurance, transfer taxes, recording fees, broker commissions, property taxes, renovation work and HOA fees, when applicable. Renovation work varies, but may include paint, flooring, cabinetry, appliances, plumbing hardware and other items required to prepare the property for rental. Additionally, we have acquired and are continuing to acquire additional homes through the purchase of communities and portions of communities purpose built for renting from regional and national home builders. Our operating results are also impacted by the amount of time it takes to market and lease a property, which can vary greatly among properties, and is impacted by local demand, our marketing techniques, size of our available inventory and our acquisition channel.

Our revenues are derived primarily from rents collected from tenants for our SFR properties under lease agreements which typically have a term of one to two years. In the fourth quarter of 2023, we entered into a strategic partnership with Darwin Homes, Inc. (“Darwin”) to establish a new property management platform, Adoor Property Management LLC (“APM”). Our SFR properties are managed through an external property manager and APM. Our rental rates and occupancy levels are affected by macroeconomic factors and local and property-level factors, including market conditions, seasonality and tenant defaults, and the amount of time it takes to turn properties when tenants vacate. In addition, once a property is available for its initial lease, we incur ongoing property-related expenses, which consist primarily of property taxes, insurance, HOA fees (when applicable), utility expenses, repairs and maintenance, leasing costs, marketing expenses and property administration. Before a property is considered rentable, certain of these expenses are capitalized as building and improvements. Once a property becomes rentable, expenditures for ordinary repairs and maintenance thereafter are expensed as incurred, and we capitalize expenditures that improve or extend the life of a property.

We believe there may be attractive opportunities to invest in portfolios of non-performing and other residential mortgage loans, along with foreclosed properties. We source non-performing residential mortgage loans primarily from two sources: third-party pool purchases and call transactions (discussed above).

With respect to our Ginnie Mae securitization and servicing activities, in order to affect a loan modification, we are required to buy the loan out of the securitization. Once the modification is completed, the loan can be sold into a new Ginnie Mae securitization. We may also choose to exercise our unilateral right to repurchase loans that are delinquent for at least three months out of a Ginnie Mae securitization (as an alternative to continuing to advance principal and interest payments to the holders of the Ginnie Mae securities). Such repurchases are commonly referred to as Early Buyouts (“EBOs”).

We pursue various types of investments as the market evolves, including opportunistic investments in consumer loans. Our portfolio of consumer loans includes a co-investment in a portfolio of consumer loans, of which we own 53.5% of interests in through limited liability companies. The portfolio includes personal unsecured loans and personal homeowner loans. We engage OneMain Holdings, Inc. (“OneMain”) as a third-party servicer of the loans.

In 2023, we purchased a portfolio of consumer loans from Goldman Sachs Bank USA (“Goldman Sachs”). The portfolio includes unsecured fixed rate closed end installment loans. We engage Goldman Sachs as a third-party master servicer of the loans, and we engage Systems & Services Technologies, Inc. (“SST”) as a third-party servicer of the loans.

As of December 31, 2023, our portfolio consists of consumer loans with a UPB of $1.3 billion.

Genesis provides lending for new acquisition, fix and flip, new construction and rental hold projects across the residential spectrum, including single-family, multi-family and production home building. Furthermore, Genesis provides a complementary business to our other real estate-related businesses and supports our strategy to create, securitize, sell or retain high coupon, low duration assets for our balance sheet. Finally, Genesis supports our growing SFR strategy and allows us to capture additional unmet demand from our Retail and Wholesale origination channels. Genesis originated 1,088 loans with a UPB of $2.1 billion in 2023.

We operate our asset management business primarily through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Sculptor. Sculptor is a leading global alternative asset manager and a specialist in opportunistic investing. Sculptor provides asset management services and investment products across credit, real estate and multi-strategy platforms through commingled funds, separate accounts and other alternative investment vehicles. We acquired Sculptor on November 17, 2023.

We make decisions about our investments in accordance with broad investment guidelines adopted by our board of directors. Accordingly, we may, without a stockholder vote, change our target asset classes and acquire a variety of assets that may differ from, and are possibly riskier than, our current portfolio.

Our board of directors has adopted a broad set of investment guidelines to evaluate specific investments. Our general investment guidelines prohibit any investment that would cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT and any investment that would cause us to be regulated as an investment company. These investment guidelines may be changed by our board of directors without the approval of our stockholders. If our board of directors changes any of our investment guidelines, we will disclose such changes in our next required periodic report.

Our objective is to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for our stockholders, which at times incorporates the use of leverage. The amount of leverage we deploy for a particular investment depends upon an assessment of a variety of factors, which may include the anticipated liquidity and price volatility of our assets; the gap between the duration of assets and liabilities, including hedges; the availability and cost of financing the assets; our opinion of the creditworthiness of financing counterparties; the health of the U.S. economy and the residential mortgage and housing markets; our outlook on interest rates; the credit quality of the loans underlying our investments; and our outlook for asset spreads relative to financing costs. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Debt Obligations” for further details about our debt obligations.

We use various hedging instruments and techniques to actively manage and hedge our investment portfolio across various interest rate environments. We expect these instruments and techniques may allow us to reduce, but not eliminate, the impact of

changing interest rates on our earnings and liquidity. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Business—Any hedging transactions that we enter into may limit our gains or result in losses.”

Our interest rate management techniques may include:

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and exclusion from registration under the 1940 Act, we may, from time to time, utilize derivative financial instruments to hedge the interest rate risk associated with our borrowings and utilize other techniques that we deem appropriate. Under the U.S. federal income tax laws applicable to REITs, we generally will be able to enter into certain transactions to hedge indebtedness that we may incur, or plan to incur, to acquire or carry real estate assets, although our total gross income from interest rate hedges that do not meet this requirement and other non-qualifying sources generally must not exceed 5% of our gross income.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and exclusion from registration under the 1940 Act, we may also engage in a variety of interest rate management techniques that seek on the one hand to mitigate the influence of interest rate changes on the values of some of our assets and on the other hand help us achieve our risk management objectives. The U.S. federal income tax rules applicable to REITs may require us to implement certain of these techniques through a domestic taxable REIT subsidiary (“TRS”) that is fully subject to U.S. federal corporate income taxation.

Subject to the approval of our board of directors, we have the authority to offer our common stock or other equity or debt securities in exchange for property and to repurchase or otherwise reacquire our shares or any other securities and may engage in such activities in the future.

We also may make loans to, or provide guarantees of certain obligations of, our subsidiaries.

Subject to the percentage ownership and gross income and asset tests necessary for REIT qualification, we may invest in securities of other REITs, other entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers, including for the purpose of exercising control over such entities.

We may engage in the purchase and sale of investments.

Our officers and directors may change any of these policies and our investment guidelines without a vote of our stockholders. In the event that we determine to raise additional equity capital, our board of directors has the authority, without stockholder approval (subject to certain New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) requirements), to issue additional common stock or preferred stock in any manner and on such terms and for such consideration it deems appropriate, including in exchange for property.

Decisions regarding the form and other characteristics of the financing for our investments are made by our officers subject to the general investment guidelines adopted by our board of directors.

The mortgage industry is subject to a highly complex legal and regulatory framework. Our subsidiaries that perform mortgage lending and servicing activities are subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local governmental and regulatory authorities, including the CFPB, Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the VA, the SEC and various state licensing, supervisory and administrative agencies. Both the scope of the laws and regulations and the intensity of the supervision to which we are subject have increased in recent years, initially in response to the financial crisis, and more recently in light of other factors such as technological and market changes. Regulatory enforcement and fines have also increased across the financial services sector. From time to time, we also receive requests from such governmental authorities for records, documents and information relating to the policies, procedures and practices of our loan servicing, origination and collection activities. In addition, we are also subject to periodic reviews and audits from the GSEs, Ginnie Mae, the CFPB, HUD, USDA, VA, state regulatory agencies and others. The legal and regulatory environment in which we operate is also constantly evolving as statutes, regulations and practices, and interpretations thereof, that are in place

may be amended or otherwise change, and new statutes, regulations and practices may be enacted, adopted or implemented. We expect to continue to face regulatory scrutiny as an organization and as a participant in the mortgage sector.

We and our subsidiaries must comply with a large number of federal, state and local consumer protection laws including, among others, the Dodd-Frank Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Homeowners Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as well as individual state licensing, privacy, foreclosure laws and federal and local bankruptcy rules. These statutes apply to many facets of our subsidiaries’ businesses, including loan origination, default servicing and collections, use of credit reports, safeguarding of non-public personally identifiable information about customers, foreclosure and claims handling, investment of and interest payments on escrow balances and escrow payment features, and such statutes mandate certain disclosures and notices to borrowers. These requirements can and will change as statutes and regulations are enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted and enforced.

In addition, various federal, state and local laws have been enacted that are designed to discourage predatory lending and servicing practices. The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (“HOEPA”) prohibits inclusion of certain provisions in residential loans that have mortgage rates or origination costs in excess of prescribed levels and requires that borrowers be given certain disclosures prior to origination. Some states have enacted, or may enact, similar laws or regulations, which in some cases impose restrictions and requirements greater than those in HOEPA. In addition, under the anti-predatory lending laws of some states, the origination of certain residential loans, including loans that are not classified as “high cost” loans under applicable law, must satisfy a net tangible benefits test with respect to the related borrower. This test may be highly subjective and open to interpretation. As a result, a court may determine that a residential loan, for example, does not meet the test even if the related originator reasonably believed that the test was satisfied. Failure of residential loan originators or servicers to comply with these laws, to the extent any of their residential loans are or become part of our mortgage-related assets, could subject us, as a servicer or, in the case of acquired loans, as an assignee or purchaser, to monetary penalties and could result in the borrowers rescinding the affected loans. Lawsuits have been brought in various states making claims against originators, servicers, assignees and purchasers of high cost loans for violations of state law. Named defendants in these cases have included numerous participants within the secondary mortgage market. If our loans are found to have been originated in violation of predatory or abusive lending laws, we could be subject to lawsuits or governmental actions, or we could be fined or incur losses.

We also must comply with federal, state and local laws related to data privacy and the handling of non-public personal financial information of our customers, including the California Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) and similar state statutes, and we expect additional states to enact legislation similar to the CCPA, which limit how companies can use customer data and impose obligations on companies in their management of such data. The service providers we use, including outside counsel retained to process foreclosures and bankruptcies, must also comply with some of these legal requirements. Changes to laws, regulations or regulatory policies or their interpretation or implementation and the continued heightening of regulatory requirements could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways, including damaging our reputation and being subject to fines, legal liabilities or other penalties.

These and other laws and regulations directly affect our business and require constant compliance monitoring and internal and external audits and examinations by federal and state regulators. We work diligently to assess and understand the implications

of the complex regulatory environment in which we operate and strive to meet the requirements of this constantly changing environment. We dedicate substantial resources to regulatory compliance while at the same time striving to meet the needs and expectations of our customers, clients and other stakeholders. Notwithstanding these efforts, there can be no assurance that we will be able to remain in compliance with these requirements. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Financial Markets and Our Regulatory Environment.”

We have elected and intend to qualify to be taxed as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Our qualification as a REIT will depend upon our ability to meet, on a continuing basis, various complex requirements under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the “Internal Revenue Code”), relating to, among other things, the sources of our gross income, the composition and values of our assets, our distribution levels to our stockholders and the concentration of ownership of our capital stock. We believe that, commencing with our initial taxable year ended December 31, 2013, we have been organized in conformity with the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code and that our manner of operation will enable us to meet the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT.

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 1940 Act. Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of the issuer’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis (the “40% test”). Excluded from the term “investment securities,” among other things, are U.S. Government securities and securities issued by majority owned subsidiaries that are not themselves investment companies and are not relying on the exclusion from the definition of investment company for private funds set forth in Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act.

We are organized as a holding company that conducts its businesses primarily through wholly-owned and majority owned subsidiaries. We intend to continue to conduct our operations so that we do not come within the definition of an investment company because less than 40% of the value of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis will consist of “investment securities” in compliance with the 40% test under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act. The value of securities issued by any wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries that we may form in the future that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” based on Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we may own, may not exceed the 40% test under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act. For purposes of the foregoing, we currently treat our interests in SLS servicer advances and our subsidiaries that hold consumer loans as investment securities because these subsidiaries presently rely on the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act. We will monitor our holdings to ensure continuing and ongoing compliance with the 40% test under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act. In addition, we believe we will not be considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act because we will not engage primarily or hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Rather, through our wholly-owned subsidiaries, we will be primarily engaged in the non-investment company businesses of these subsidiaries.

If the value of securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we own, exceeds the 40% test under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (a) change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (b) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or (c) register as an investment company, any of which could negatively affect the market price of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model and our ability to make distributions.

For purposes of the foregoing, we treat our interests in certain of our wholly-owned and majority owned subsidiaries, which constitutes more than 60% of the value of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis, as non-investment securities because such subsidiaries qualify for exclusion from the definition of an investment company under the 1940 Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act (the “Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion”). The Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion is available for entities “primarily engaged” in the business of “purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in

real estate.” The Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion generally requires that at least 55% of these subsidiaries’ assets comprise qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of each of their portfolios must comprise qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets under the 1940 Act. Maintenance of our exclusion under the 1940 Act generally limits the amount of our Section 3(c)(5)(C) subsidiaries’ investments in non-real estate assets to no more than 20% of our total assets.

In satisfying the 55% requirement under the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion, based on guidance from the SEC and its staff, we treat Agency RMBS issued with respect to an underlying pool of mortgage loans in which we hold all of the certificates issued by the pool as qualifying real estate assets. The SEC and its staff have not published guidance with respect to the treatment of whole pool Non-Agency RMBS for purposes of the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion. Accordingly, based on our own judgment and analysis of the guidance from the SEC and its staff identifying Agency whole pool certificates as qualifying real estate assets under Section 3(c)(5)(C), we treat whole pool Non-Agency RMBS issued with respect to an underlying pool of mortgage loans in which our subsidiary relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) holds all of the certificates issued by the pool as qualifying real estate assets. We also treat whole mortgage loans that each of our subsidiaries relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) may acquire directly as qualifying real estate assets provided that 100% of the loan is secured by real estate when such subsidiary acquires the loan, and the subsidiary has the unilateral right to foreclose on the mortgage.

Based on our own judgment and analysis of the guidance from the SEC and its staff with respect to analogous assets, we treat Excess MSRs for which we do not own the related servicing rights as real estate-related assets for purposes of satisfying the 80% test under the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion. We treat investments in Agency partial pool RMBS and Non-Agency partial pool RMBS as real estate-related assets for purposes of satisfying the 80% test under the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion.

We expect each of our subsidiaries relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) to rely on guidance published by the SEC staff or on our analyses of guidance published with respect to other types of assets to determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets. The SEC may in the future take a view different than or contrary to our analysis with respect to the types of assets we have determined to be qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets. To the extent that the SEC staff publishes new or different guidance with respect to these matters, or disagrees with our analysis, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. In addition, we may be limited in our ability to make certain investments and these limitations could result in the subsidiary holding assets we might wish to sell or selling assets we might wish to hold.

Although we monitor our portfolio periodically and prior to each investment origination or acquisition, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion from the definition of an investment company under the 1940 Act for these subsidiaries.

To the extent that the SEC staff provides more specific guidance regarding any of the matters bearing upon the exclusions or exceptions we and our subsidiaries rely on from the 1940 Act, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. Any additional guidance from the SEC staff could provide additional flexibility to us, or it could further inhibit our ability to pursue the strategies we have chosen.

Qualification for an exclusion from registration under the 1940 Act will limit our ability to make certain investments. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Financial Markets and Our Regulatory Environment—Maintenance of our 1940 Act exclusion imposes limits on our operations.”

Our overall success depends, in large part, on our ability to acquire target assets on terms consistent with our business and economic model. In acquiring these assets, we expect to compete with banks, REITs, independent mortgage loan originators and servicers, private equity firms, alternative asset managers, hedge funds and other large financial services companies, as well as technology-oriented platforms, often referred to as “disruptors,” across the broader real estate and financial services industry. Many of our anticipated competitors are significantly larger than we are, have access to greater capital and other resources and may have other advantages over us. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could lead them to offer higher prices for assets that we might be interested in acquiring and cause us to lose bids for those assets. In addition, other potential purchasers of our target assets may be more attractive to sellers of such assets if the sellers believe that these potential purchasers could obtain any necessary third-party approvals and consents more easily than us.

As it relates to our Mortgage Company (including mortgage-related services businesses), we provide various residential mortgage loan and real estate services products. We compete with other lenders across a variety of industry segments. Loan production faces intense competition primarily on the basis of product offerings, brand recognition, technical knowledge, speed of execution, rates and fees. Servicing competes primarily on the price, experience, quality and efficiency of execution and

servicing performance. Potential counterparties also assess our ability to demonstrate compliance with local, state and federal regulations and to improve technology and processes while controlling our costs.

As it relates to our asset management business, the asset management industry is intensely competitive, and we expect that it will remain so. We compete globally and regionally with other investment managers, including hedge funds, public and private investment firms, distressed debt funds, mezzanine funds and other CLO issuers, real estate development companies, business development companies, investment banks and other financial institutions worldwide. We compete for both investors in our funds and attractive investment opportunities based on a number of factors, including investment performance, brand recognition, business reputation, pricing, innovation, the quality of services we provide to the investors in our funds, the range of products we offer and our ability to attract and retain qualified professionals in all aspects of our business while managing our operating costs. We face competitors that are larger than we are and have greater financial, technical and marketing resources. Certain of our competitors may continue to raise capital to pursue investment strategies that may be similar to ours, which may create additional competition for investment opportunities. In addition, some of these competitors may have higher risk tolerances or make different risk assessments than we do, or may have lower return thresholds, allowing them to consider a wider variety of investments and establish broader networks of business relationships. They may also be subject to different regulatory requirements, which may give them greater flexibility to pursue investment opportunities or attract new capital to their funds. For additional information regarding the competitive risks that we face, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Recent Acquisitions—Competitive pressures in the asset management business could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.”

In the face of this competition, we expect to take advantage of the experience of members of our management team and their industry expertise which may provide us with a competitive advantage and help us assess potential risks and determine appropriate pricing for certain potential acquisitions of our target assets. In addition, we expect that these relationships will enable us to compete more effectively for attractive acquisition opportunities. However, we may not be able to achieve our business goals or expectations due to the competitive risks that we face.

Our executive management team oversees our human capital resources and employment practices to ensure that an asset as important as our employees are strategically integrated with our goals and business plans as a manager of assets and investments focused on the real estate and financial services industries.

We believe that our employees are one of our strongest resources. We seek out talented, driven and diverse individuals who work together to positively impact the lives of our team members, shareholders and the communities we serve. Further, we are committed to diversity, equity and inclusion best practices in all phases of the employee life cycle, including recruitment, training and development and promotion, and we are consistently working to achieve greater workplace diversity.

We have been and will continue to be an equal opportunity employer committed to hiring, developing and supporting a diverse, equitable and inclusive workplace. To ensure full implementation of this equal employment policy, we take steps to ensure that persons are recruited, hired, assigned and promoted without regard to race, national origin, religion, age, color, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disability, genetic information, veteran status or any other characteristic protected by local, state or federal laws, rules or regulations. We reward our employees based on merit and their contributions in accordance with the requirements of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.

We maintain policies that reinforce and enhance our commitment to high ethical standards, corporate governance and internal controls, to provide the best and most competitive service to our customers in order to enhance stockholder value. We promote a workplace that is free of harassment and discriminatory and retaliatory practices. In keeping with these priorities, we maintain an open-door policy for conflict management and require interactive harassment prevention training at least once per year for both managers and employees consistent with applicable state and local laws. We regularly re-evaluate our internal policies, including codes of ethics, corporate governance, disclosure controls, anti-discrimination, harassment, retaliation and related complaint procedures, insider trading and related party transaction activity.

Additionally, we work to ensure our commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion are reflected throughout our operating companies.

We recognize employee engagement and retention as a critical factor to our success and are committed to maintaining a work environment in which employee growth and advancement are very important. We strive to recognize and reward noteworthy performance, evaluated through periodic reviews with each employee. We seek to attract and retain the most relevant and skilled employees by offering competitive compensation and benefits, including both fixed and variable pay, consisting of base salary, cash bonuses and equity-based compensation consistent with employee position and seniority, as well as opportunities for merit-based increases. Additionally, among other benefits, we provide our employees with comprehensive medical, dental and vision coverage, life and long-term disability insurance, critical illness coverage and supplemental accident insurance.

As of December 31, 2023, we have 6,570 employees. None of our employees is represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

For a discussion of our legal proceedings, see Item 3. “Legal Proceedings” in this report.

We emphasize the importance of professional business conduct and ethics through our corporate governance initiatives. Our board of directors consists of a majority of independent directors, and the Audit, Nominating and Corporate Governance and Compensation committees of our board of directors are composed exclusively of independent directors. We have adopted corporate governance guidelines and codes of business conduct and ethics, which delineate our standards for our officers, directors and employees.

Rithm Capital files annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information required by the Exchange Act with the SEC. Our SEC filings are available to the public from the SEC’s internet site at http://www.sec.gov.

Our internet site is http://www.rithmcap.com. We make available free of charge through our internet site our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and Forms 3, 4 and 5 filed on behalf of directors and executive officers and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Also posted on our website in the “Investors—Governance” section are charters for our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, as well as our Corporate Governance Guidelines and policies, including our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics governing our directors, officers and employees. Information on, or accessible through, our website is not a part of, and is not incorporated into, this report.

Investing in our stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully read and consider the following risk factors and all other information contained in this report. If any of the following risks, as well as additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial, occur, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risk factors summarized below are categorized as follows: (i) Risks Related to Our Business, (ii) Risks Related to the Financial Markets and Our Regulatory Environment, (iii) Risks Related to Our Financing Arrangements, (iv) Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT, (v) Risks Related to Our Recent Acquisitions, (vi) Risks Related to Our Stock and (vii) General Risks. However, these categories do overlap and should not be considered exclusive.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully operate our business or implement our operating policies and strategies. There can be no assurance that we will be able to generate sufficient returns to pay our operating expenses, satisfy our debt obligations and pay dividends to our stockholders. Our results of operations and our ability to make or sustain distributions to our stockholders depend on several factors, including the availability of opportunities to acquire attractive assets, the performance of our funds, our ability to integrate recently acquired businesses including Sculptor, the level and volatility of interest rates, the performance of our origination and servicing businesses, the availability of adequate short- and long-term financing and conditions in the real estate market, the financial markets and economic conditions.

When we make investments, we base the price we pay on, among other things, our projection of the cash flows from the investments. We generally record such investments on our balance sheet at fair value and we measure their fair value on a recurring basis. Our projections of the cash flow from our investments, and the determination of the fair value thereof, are based on assumptions about various factors, including, but not limited to:

Our assumptions could differ materially from actual results. The use of different estimates or assumptions in connection with the valuation of these investments could produce materially different fair values for such investments, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations. A valuation is only an estimate of value and is not a precise measure of realizable value. Ultimate realization of the market value of a private asset depends to a great extent on economic and other conditions beyond our control. Further, valuations do not necessarily represent the price at which a private investment would sell since market prices of private investments can only be determined by negotiation between a willing buyer and seller. The ultimate realization of the value of our investments may be materially different than the fair values of such investments as reflected in our Consolidated Financial Statements as of any particular date.

Significant and widespread decreases in the fair values of our assets could result in the potential impairment of the carrying value of goodwill or other indefinite-lived intangible assets and could also cause us to breach the financial covenants under our borrowing facilities or other agreements related to liquidity, net worth, leverage or other financial metrics. Such covenants, if breached, may require us to immediately repay all outstanding amounts borrowed, if any, under these facilities, could cause these facilities to become unavailable for future financing, and could trigger cross-defaults under other debt agreements. In any such scenario, we could engage in discussions with our financing counterparties with regard to such covenants; however, we cannot predict whether our financing counterparties would negotiate terms or agreements in respect of these financial covenants, the timing of any such negotiations or agreements or the terms thereof. A continued reduction in our cash flows could impact our ability to continue paying dividends to our stockholders at the expected levels or at all.

We refer to our MSRs, MSR financing receivables, Excess MSRs and the basic fee portion of the related MSRs included in our servicer advance investments, collectively, as our interests in MSRs.

With respect to our investments in interests in MSRs, residential mortgage loans and consumer loans and a portion of our RMBS, when the related loans are prepaid as a result of a refinancing or otherwise, the related cash flows payable to us will either, in the case of interest-only RMBS, and/or interests in MSRs, cease (unless, in the case of our interests in MSRs, the loans are recaptured upon a refinancing), or we will cease to receive interest income on such investments, as applicable. Borrowers under residential mortgage loans and consumer loans are generally permitted to prepay their loans at any time without penalty. Our expectation of prepayment rates is a significant assumption underlying our cash flow projections.

Prepayment rate is the measurement of how quickly borrowers pay down the UPB of their loans or how quickly loans are otherwise brought current, modified, liquidated or charged off. A significant increase in prepayment rates could materially reduce the ultimate cash flows and/or interest income, as applicable, we receive from our investments, and we could ultimately receive substantially less than what we paid for such assets, decreasing the fair value of our investments. If the fair value of our investment portfolio decreases, we would generally be required to record a non-cash charge, which would have a negative impact on our financial results. Consequently, the price we pay to acquire our investments may prove to be too high if there is a significant increase in prepayment rates.

The values of our investments are highly sensitive to changes in interest rates. Historically, the value of MSRs, which underpin the value of our investments, including interests in MSRs, has increased when interest rates rise and decreased when interest rates decline due to the effect of changes in interest rates on prepayment rates.

Moreover, delinquency rates have a significant impact on the value of our investments. When the UPB of mortgage loans cease to be a part of the aggregate UPB of the serviced loan pool (for example, when delinquent loans are foreclosed on or repurchased, or otherwise sold, from a securitized pool), the related cash flows payable to us, as the holder of an interest in the related MSR, cease. An increase in delinquencies will generally result in lower revenue because typically we will only collect on our interests in MSRs from the Agencies or mortgage owners for performing loans. An increase in delinquencies with respect to the loans underlying our servicer advances could also result in a higher advance balance and the need to obtain additional financing, which we may not be able to do on favorable terms or at all. Additionally, in the case of residential mortgage loans, consumer loans, business purpose loans and RMBS that we own, an increase in foreclosures could result in an acceleration of repayments, resulting in a decrease in interest income. Alternatively, increases in delinquencies and defaults could also adversely affect our investments in RMBS, residential mortgage loans, consumer loans and/or business purpose loans if and to the extent that losses are suffered on residential mortgage loans, consumer loans, business purpose loans or, in the case of RMBS, the residential mortgage loans underlying such RMBS. Accordingly, if delinquencies are significantly greater than expected, the estimated fair value of these investments could be diminished. As a result, we could suffer a loss, which would have a negative impact on our financial results.

We are party to several “recapture agreements” whereby our MSR or Excess MSR is retained if the applicable Servicing Partner originates a new loan the proceeds of which are used to repay a loan underlying an MSR or Excess MSR in our portfolio. We believe that such agreements will mitigate the impact on our returns in the event of a rise in voluntary prepayment rates, with respect to investments where we have such agreements. There are no assurances, however, that counterparties will enter into such arrangements with us in connection with any future investment in MSRs or Excess MSRs. We are not party to any such arrangements with respect to any of our investments other than MSRs and Excess MSRs.

If the applicable Servicing Partner does not meet anticipated recapture targets, the servicing cash flow on a given pool could be significantly lower than projected, which could have a material adverse effect on the value of our MSRs or Excess MSRs and consequently on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Our recapture target for our current recapture agreements is stated in the table in Note 20 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Additionally, certain valuation methodologies for certain assets in our funds are subject to significant subjectivity and risk exists that these policies and procedures may not always function effectively. There are no readily ascertainable market prices for the large number of the illiquid investments held by our funds. The fair value of the investments of our funds is determined periodically by us using a number of methodologies permitted by our funds’ valuation policies. These methodologies involve a

significant degree of judgment and are based on a number of factors, which may include, without limitations, the nature of the investment, the expected cash flows from the investment, bid or ask prices provided by third parties for the investment, the length of time the investment has been held, the trading price of financial instruments (in the case of publicly traded financial instruments), restrictions on transfer and other recognized valuation methodologies. In addition, because certain of the illiquid investments held by our funds may be in industries or sectors that are under distress or undergoing some uncertainty, such investments may be subject to rapid changes in value caused by sudden company-specific or industry-specific developments.

Because there is significant uncertainty in the valuation of and in the stability of the value of illiquid investments, the fair values of such investments as reflected in a fund’s net asset value do not necessarily reflect the prices that might actually be obtained when such investments are sold. Realizations at values significantly lower than the values at which investments have been reflected in fund net asset values would result in losses for the applicable funds, a decline in management fees and the loss of potential incentive income. Also, a situation where asset values turn out to be materially different from values reflected in fund net asset values may cause investors to lose confidence in us, which could, in turn, result in redemptions from our funds, difficulties in our ability to raise additional capital or an increased risk of litigation by investors or governmental or self-regulatory organizations. These issues could result in regulatory scrutiny of our valuation methodologies, polices and related disclosures.

We are generally required to make servicer advances related to the pools of loans for which we are the named servicer. In addition, we have agreed to purchase from our Servicing Partners all servicer advances related to certain loan pools, as a result of which we are entitled to amounts representing repayment for such advances. During any period in which a borrower is not making payments, a servicer is generally required under the applicable servicing agreement to advance its own funds to cover the principal and interest remittances due to investors in the loans, pay property taxes and insurance premiums to third parties and to make payments for legal expenses and other protective advances. The servicer also advances funds to maintain, repair and market real estate properties on behalf of investors in the loans.

Repayment of servicer advances and payment of deferred servicing fees are generally made from late payments and other collections and recoveries on the related residential mortgage loan (including liquidation, insurance and condemnation proceeds) or, if the related servicing agreement provides for a “general collections backstop,” from collections on other residential mortgage loans to which such servicing agreement relates. The rate and timing of payments on servicer advances and deferred servicing fees are unpredictable for several reasons, including the following:

As home values change, the servicer may have to reconsider certain of the assumptions underlying its decisions to make advances. In certain situations, its contractual obligations may require the servicer to make certain advances for which it may not be reimbursed. For example, a servicer may not ultimately be reimbursed if both (i) the payments from related loan, property or mortgagor payments are insufficient for reimbursement and (ii) a general collections backstop is not available or is insufficient. Also, if a servicer improperly makes a servicer advance, it would not be entitled to reimbursement. In addition, when a residential mortgage loan defaults or becomes delinquent, the repayment of the advance may be delayed until the residential mortgage loan is repaid or refinanced, or a liquidation occurs. To the extent that one of our Servicing Partners fails to recover the servicer advances in which we have invested or takes longer than we expect to recover such advances, the value of our investment could be adversely affected, and we could fail to achieve our expected return and suffer losses. Accordingly, while we do not expect recovery rates to vary materially during the term of our investments, there can be no assurance regarding future recovery rates related to our portfolio.

The value of certain of our investments is dependent on the satisfactory performance of servicing obligations by the related mortgage servicer or subservicer, as applicable. The duties and obligations of mortgage servicers are defined through contractual agreements, generally referred to as Servicing Guides in the case of GSEs, the MBS Guide in the case of Ginnie Mae or pooling agreements, securitization servicing agreements, pooling and servicing agreements or other similar agreements (collectively, “PSAs”) in the case of Non-Agency RMBS (collectively, the “Servicing Guidelines”). The duties of the subservicers we engage to service the loans underlying our MSRs are contained in subservicing agreements with our subservicers. The duties of a subservicer under a subservicing agreement may not be identical to the obligations of the servicer under Servicing Guidelines. Our interests in MSRs are subject to all of the terms and conditions of the applicable Servicing

Guidelines. Servicing Guidelines generally provide for the possibility of termination of the contractual rights of the servicer in the absolute discretion of the owner of the mortgages being serviced (or the required bondholders in the case of Non-Agency RMBS). Under the Agency Servicing Guidelines, the servicer may be terminated by the applicable Agency for any reason, “with” or “without” cause, for all or any portion of the loans being serviced for such Agency. In the event mortgage owners (or bondholders) terminate the servicer (regardless of whether such servicer is a subsidiary of Rithm Capital or one of its subservicers), the related interests in MSRs would under most circumstances lose all value on a going forward basis. If the servicer is terminated as servicer for any Agency pools, the servicer’s right to service the related mortgage loans will be extinguished and our interests in related MSRs will likely lose all of their value. Any recovery in such circumstances, in the case of Non-Agency RMBS, will be highly conditioned and may require, among other things, a new servicer willing to pay for the right to service the applicable residential mortgage loans while assuming responsibility for the origination and prior servicing of the residential mortgage loans. In addition, in the case of Agency MSRs, any payment received from a successor servicer will be applied first to pay the applicable Agency for all of its claims and costs, including claims and costs against the servicer that do not relate to the residential mortgage loans for which we own interests in the MSRs. A termination could also result in an event of default under our related financings. It is expected that any termination of a servicer by mortgage owners (or bondholders) would take effect across all mortgages of such mortgage owners (or bondholders) and would not be limited to a particular vintage or other subset of mortgages. Therefore, it is possible that all investments with a given servicer would lose all their value in the event mortgage owners (or bondholders) terminate such servicer. See “—We have significant counterparty concentration risk in certain of our Servicing Partners and are subject to other counterparty concentration and default risks.” As a result, we could be materially and adversely affected if one of our Servicing Partners is unable to adequately carry out its duties as a result of:

In the ordinary course of business, our Servicing Partners are subject to numerous legal proceedings, federal, state or local governmental examinations, investigations or enforcement actions which could adversely affect their reputation and their liquidity, financial position and results of operations. Mortgage servicers, including certain of our Servicing Partners, have experienced heightened regulatory scrutiny and enforcement actions and our Servicing Partners could be adversely affected by the market’s perception that they could experience, or continue to experience, regulatory issues. See “Risks Related to the Financial Markets and Our Regulatory Environment—Certain of our Servicing Partners have been and are subject to federal and state regulatory matters and other litigation, which may adversely impact us.”

Loss mitigation techniques are intended to reduce the probability that borrowers will default on their loans and to minimize losses when defaults occur, and they may include the modification of mortgage loan rates, principal balances and maturities. If any of our Servicing Partners fail to adequately perform their loss mitigation obligations, we could be required to make or purchase, as applicable, servicer advances in excess of those that we might otherwise have had to make or purchase and the time period for collecting servicer advances may extend. Any increase in servicer advances or material increase in the time to resolution of a defaulted loan could result in increased capital requirements and financing costs for us and our co-investors and could adversely affect our liquidity and net income. In the event that one of our servicers from which we are obligated to purchase servicer advances is required by the applicable Servicing Guidelines to make advances in excess of amounts that we or, in the case of Mr. Cooper, the co-investors, are willing or able to fund, such servicer may not be able to fund these advance requests, which could result in a termination event under the applicable Servicing Guidelines, an event of default under our advance facilities and a breach of our purchase agreement with such servicer. As a result, we could experience a partial or total loss of the value of our servicer advance investments.

MSRs and servicer advances are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations and may be subject to various judicial and administrative decisions. If the Servicing Partner actually or allegedly failed to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations, it could be terminated as the servicer, and could lead to civil and criminal liability, loss of licensing, damage to our reputation and litigation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, servicer advances that are improperly made may not be eligible for financing under our

facilities and may not be reimbursable by the related securitization trust or other owner of the residential mortgage loan, which could cause us to suffer losses.

Favorable servicer ratings from third-party rating agencies, such as S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”), Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) and Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”), are important to the conduct of a mortgage servicer’s loan servicing business, and a downgrade in a Servicing Partner’s servicer ratings could have an adverse effect on the value of our interests in MSRs and result in an event of default under our financings. Downgrades in a Servicing Partner’s servicer ratings could adversely affect our ability to finance our assets and maintain their status as an approved servicer by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Downgrades in servicer ratings could also lead to the early termination of existing advance facilities and affect the terms and availability of financing that a Servicing Partner or we may seek in the future. A Servicing Partner’s failure to maintain favorable or specified ratings may cause their termination as a servicer and may impair their ability to consummate future servicing transactions, which could result in an event of default under our financing for servicer advances and have an adverse effect on the value of our investments because we will rely heavily on Servicing Partners to achieve our investment objectives and have no direct ability to influence their performance.

For additional information about the ways in which we may be affected by mortgage servicers, see “—The value of our interests in MSRs, servicer advances, residential mortgage loans, business purpose loans and RMBS may be adversely affected by deficiencies in servicing and foreclosure practices, as well as related delays in the foreclosure process.”

A number of lawsuits, including class actions, have been filed against mortgage servicers alleging improper servicing in connection with residential Non-Agency mortgage securitizations. Investors in, and counterparties to, such securitizations may commence legal action against us and responding to such claims, and any related losses, could negatively impact our business. The number of counterparties on behalf of which we service loans significantly increases as the size of our Non-Agency MSR portfolio increases and we may become subject to claims and legal proceedings, including purported class-actions, in the ordinary course of our business, challenging whether our loan servicing practices and other aspects of our business comply with applicable laws, agreements and regulatory requirements. We are unable to predict whether any such claims will be made, the ultimate outcome of any such claims, the possible loss, if any, associated with the resolution of such claims or the potential impact any such claims may have on us or our business and operations. Regardless of the merit of any such claims or lawsuits, defending any claims or lawsuits may be time consuming and costly and we may be required to expend significant internal resources and incur material expenses, and management time may be diverted from other aspects of our business, in connection therewith. Further, if our efforts to defend any such claims or lawsuits are not successful, our business could be materially and adversely affected. As a result of investor and other counterparty claims, we could also suffer reputational damage and trustees, lenders and other counterparties could cease wanting to do business with us.

As a mortgage servicer, we have an EBO option for loans at least three months delinquent in our Ginnie Mae MSR portfolio. As of December 31, 2023, Rithm Capital holds approximately $1.8 billion in residential mortgage loans subject to repurchase on its Consolidated Balance Sheets. Purchasing delinquent Ginnie Mae loans provides us with an alternative to our mortgage servicing obligation of advancing principal and interest at the coupon rate of the related Ginnie Mae security. While our EBO program reduces the cost of servicing the Ginnie Mae loans, it may also accelerate loss recognition when the loans are repurchased because we are required to write off accumulated non-reimbursable interest advances and other costs. In addition, after purchasing the delinquent Ginnie Mae loans, we expect to resecuritize many of the delinquent loans into another Ginnie Mae guaranteed security upon the delinquent loans becoming current either through the borrower’s reperformance or through the completion of a loan modification; however, there is no guarantee that any delinquent loan will reperform or be modified. Failure to successfully modify, resell or refinance our repurchased Ginnie Mae loans or default of a significant portion of the repurchased Ginnie Mae loans may adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Our ability to acquire and/or transfer MSRs may be subject to the approval of various third parties and such approvals may not be provided on a timely basis or at all or may be conditioned upon our satisfaction of significant conditions which could require

material expenditures and the provision of significant representations, warranties and indemnities. Such third parties may include the Agencies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) with respect to agency MSRs, and securitization trustees, master servicers, depositors, rating agencies and insurers, among others, with respect to Non-Agency MSRs. The process of obtaining any such approvals required for a servicing transfer, especially with respect to Non-Agency MSRs, may be time consuming and costly and we may be required to expend significant internal resources and incur material expenses in connection with such transactions. Further, the parties from whom approval is necessary may require that we provide significant representations and warranties and broad indemnities as a condition to their consent, which such representations and warranties and indemnities, if given, may expose us to material risks in addition to those arising under the related servicing agreements. Consenting parties may also charge a material consent fee and may require that we reimburse them for the legal expenses they incur in connection with their approval of the servicing transfer, which such expenses may include costs relating to substantial contract due diligence and may be significant. No assurance can be given that we will be able to successfully obtain the consents required to acquire the MSRs that we have agreed to purchase.

We are not restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of our transactions with a few counterparties. Any loss suffered by us as a result of a counterparty defaulting, refusing to conduct business with us or imposing more onerous terms on us would also negatively affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Our interests in MSRs relate to loans serviced or subserviced, as applicable, by our Servicing Partners. As disclosed in Notes 5, 6 and 7 to our Consolidated Financial Statements, certain of our Servicing Partners service and/or subservice a substantial portion of our interests in MSRs. If any of these Servicing Partners is the named servicer of the related MSR and is terminated, its servicing performance deteriorates, or in the event that any of them files for bankruptcy, our expected returns on these investments could be severely impacted. In addition, a large portion of the loans underlying our Non-Agency RMBS are serviced by certain of our Servicing Partners. We closely monitor our Servicing Partners’ mortgage servicing performance and overall operating performance, financial condition and liquidity, as well as their compliance with applicable regulations and Servicing Guidelines. We have various information, access and inspection rights in our agreements with these Servicing Partners that enable us to monitor aspects of their financial and operating performance and credit quality, which we periodically evaluate and discuss with their management. However, we have no direct ability to influence our Servicing Partners’ performance, and our diligence cannot prevent, and may not even help us anticipate, the termination of any such Servicing Partners’ servicing agreement or a severe deterioration of any of our Servicing Partners’ servicing performance on our portfolio of interests in MSRs.

Furthermore, certain of our Servicing Partners are subject to numerous legal proceedings, federal, state or local governmental examinations, investigations or enforcement actions, which could adversely affect their operations, reputation and liquidity, financial position and results of operations. See “Risks Related to the Financial Markets and Our Regulatory Environment—Certain of our Servicing Partners have been and are subject to federal and state regulatory matters and other litigation, which may adversely impact us” for more information.

None of our Servicing Partners has an obligation to offer us any future co-investment opportunity on the same terms as prior transactions, or at all, and we may not be able to find suitable counterparties from which to acquire interests in MSRs, which could impact our business strategy. See “—We rely on our Servicing Partners to achieve our investment objective for certain investments and have no direct ability to influence their performance.”

Repayment of the outstanding amount of servicer advances (including payment with respect to deferred servicing fees) may be subject to delay, reduction or set-off in the event that the related Servicing Partner breaches any of its obligations under the Servicing Guidelines, including, without limitation, any failure of such Servicing Partner to perform its servicing and advancing functions in accordance with the terms of such Servicing Guidelines. If any applicable Servicing Partner is terminated or resigns as servicer and the applicable successor servicer does not purchase all outstanding servicer advances at the time of transfer, collection of the servicer advances will be dependent on the performance of such successor servicer and, if applicable, reliance on such successor servicer’s compliance with the “first-in, first-out” or “FIFO” provisions of the Servicing Guidelines. In addition, such successor servicers may not agree to purchase the outstanding advances on the same terms as our current purchase arrangements and may require, as a condition of their purchase, modification to such FIFO provisions, which could further delay our repayment and adversely affect the returns from our investment.

We are subject to substantial other operational risks associated with our Servicing Partners in connection with the financing of servicer advances. In our current financing facilities for servicer advances, the failure of our Servicing Partner to satisfy various

covenants and tests can result in an amortization event and/or an event of default. We have no direct ability to control our Servicing Partners’ compliance with those covenants and tests. Failure of our Servicing Partners to satisfy any such covenants or tests could result in a partial or total loss on our investment.

In addition, our Servicing Partners are party to our servicer advance financing agreements, with respect to those advances where they service or subservice the loans underlying the related MSRs. Our ability to obtain financing for these assets is dependent on our Servicing Partners’ agreement to be a party to the related financing agreements. If our Servicing Partners do not agree to be a party to these financing agreements for any reason, we may not be able to obtain financing on favorable terms or at all. Our ability to obtain financing on such assets is dependent on our Servicing Partners’ ability to satisfy various tests under such financing arrangements. Breaches and other events with respect to our Servicing Partners (which may include, without limitation, failure of a Servicing Partner to satisfy certain financial tests) could cause certain or all of the relevant servicer advance financing to become due and payable prior to maturity.

We are dependent on our Servicing Partners as the servicer or subservicer of the residential mortgage loans with respect to which we hold interests in MSRs and their servicing practices may impact the value of certain of our assets. We may be adversely impacted:

Our interests in MSRs relate to loans serviced or subserviced, as applicable, by our Servicing Partners. As disclosed in Notes 5, 6 and 7 to our Consolidated Financial Statements, certain of our Servicing Partners service and/or subservice a substantial portion of our interests in MSRs. In addition, Mr. Cooper is currently the servicer for a significant portion of our loans, and the loans underlying our RMBS. If the servicing performance of one of our subservicers deteriorates, if one of our subservicers files for bankruptcy or if one of our subservicers is otherwise unwilling or unable to continue to subservice MSRs for us, our expected returns on these investments would be severely impacted. In addition, if a subservicer becomes subject to a regulatory consent order or similar enforcement proceeding, that regulatory action could adversely affect us in several ways. For example, the regulatory action could result in delays of transferring servicing from an interim subservicer to our designated successor subservicer or cause the subservicer’s performance to degrade. Any such development would negatively affect our expected returns on these investments and such effect could be materially adverse to our business and results of operations. We closely monitor each subservicer’s mortgage servicing performance and overall operating performance, financial condition and liquidity, as well as its compliance with applicable regulations and GSE servicing guidelines. We have various information, access and inspection rights in our respective agreements with our subservicers that enable us to monitor their financial and operating performance and credit quality, which we periodically evaluate and discuss with each subservicer’s respective management. However, we have no direct ability to influence each subservicer’s performance, and our diligence cannot prevent, and may not even help us anticipate, a severe deterioration of each subservicer’s respective servicing performance on our MSR portfolio.

Moreover, we are party to repurchase agreements with a limited number of counterparties. If any of our counterparties elected not to renew our repurchase agreements, we may not be able to find a replacement counterparty, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Additionally, our funds enter into numerous types of financial arrangements with a wide array of counterparties around the world, including loans, swaps, repurchase agreements, securities lending agreements and other derivative and non-derivative contracts. The terms of these contracts are often customized and complex and these arrangements may occur in markets or relate to products that are not currently subject to experienced regulatory oversight, although the Dodd-Frank Act provides certain regulation in the U.S. derivatives market. In particular, certain of our funds utilize prime brokerage arrangements with a relatively limited number of counterparties, which has the effect of concentrating the transaction volume (and related counterparty default risk) of these funds with these counterparties.

Our risk-management processes may not accurately anticipate the impact of market stress or counterparty financial condition, and as a result, we may not take sufficient action to reduce our risks effectively. Although we will monitor our credit exposures, default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect, foresee or evaluate. In addition, concerns about,

or a default by, one large participant could lead to significant liquidity problems for other participants, which may in turn expose us to significant losses.

In the event of a counterparty default, particularly a default by a major investment bank, commercial bank, other financial institution or Servicing Partner, we could incur material losses rapidly, and the resulting market impact of a major counterparty default could seriously harm our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. In the event that one of our counterparties becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy, our ability to eventually recover any losses suffered as a result of that counterparty’s default may be limited by the liquidity of the counterparty or the applicable legal regime governing the bankruptcy proceeding.

If any of our Servicing Partners becomes subject to a bankruptcy proceeding, we could be materially and adversely affected, and you could suffer losses, as discussed below.

We believe that a mortgage servicer’s transfer to us of MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or any other asset transferred pursuant to a related purchase agreement, including loans, constitutes a sale of such assets, in which case such assets would not be part of such servicer’s bankruptcy estate. The servicer (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding), a bankruptcy trustee appointed in such servicer’s bankruptcy proceeding, or any other party in interest, however, might assert in a bankruptcy proceeding MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or any other assets transferred to us pursuant to the related purchase agreement were not sold to us but were instead pledged to us as security for such servicer’s obligation to repay amounts paid by us to the servicer pursuant to the related purchase agreement. If such assertion were successful, all or part of the MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or any other asset transferred to us pursuant to the related purchase agreement would constitute property of the bankruptcy estate of such servicer and our rights against the servicer could be those of a secured creditor with a lien on such present and future assets.

If the purchases pursuant to the related purchase agreement are recharacterized as secured financings as set forth above, we nevertheless created and perfected security interests with respect to the MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances and other assets that we may have purchased from such servicer by including a pledge of collateral in the related purchase agreement and filing financing statements in appropriate jurisdictions. Nonetheless, to the extent we have created and perfected a security interest, our security interests may be challenged and ruled unenforceable, ineffective or subordinated by a bankruptcy court, and the amount of our claims may be disputed so as not to include all MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances to be collected. If this were to occur, or if we have not created a security interest, then the servicer’s obligations to us with respect to purchased MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or other assets would be deemed unsecured obligations, payable from unencumbered assets to be shared among all of such servicer’s unsecured creditors. In addition, even if the security interests are found to be valid and enforceable, if a bankruptcy court determines that the value of the collateral is less than such servicer’s underlying obligations to us, the difference between such value and the total amount of such obligations will be deemed an unsecured “deficiency” claim and the same result will occur with respect to such unsecured claim. In addition, even if the security interest is found to be valid and enforceable, such servicer would have the right to use the proceeds of our collateral subject to either (a) our consent or (b) approval by the bankruptcy court, subject to providing us with “adequate protection” under U.S. bankruptcy laws. Such servicer also would have the ability to confirm a chapter 11 plan over our objections if the plan complied with the “cramdown” requirements under U.S. bankruptcy laws.

If one of our Servicing Partners were to file, or to become the subject of, a bankruptcy proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or similar state insolvency laws, and our security interest (if any) is declared unenforceable, ineffective or subordinated, payments previously made by a servicer to us pursuant to the related purchase agreement may be recoverable on behalf of the bankruptcy estate as preferential transfers.

If the court were to determine that any payments were avoidable as preferential transfers, we would be required to return such payments to such servicer’s bankruptcy estate and would have an unsecured claim against such servicer with respect to such returned amounts.

The mortgage servicer (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding), a bankruptcy trustee appointed in such servicer’s bankruptcy proceeding, or another party in interest could also claim that such servicer’s transfer to us of MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or other assets or such servicer’s agreement to incur obligations to us under the related purchase agreement was a fraudulent conveyance. Although we believe that no such transfer, interest, advance or agreement constitutes a fraudulent conveyance, if any transfer or incurrence is determined to be a fraudulent conveyance, our Servicing Partner, as applicable (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding), or a bankruptcy trustee on such Servicing Partner’s behalf would be entitled to recover such transfer or to avoid the obligation previously incurred.

Certain subsidiaries of Rithm Capital perform various mortgage and real estate related services and have origination and servicing operations, which entail borrower-facing activities and employing personnel. Owning entities that perform these and other operations could expose us to risks similar to those of our Servicing Partners, as well as various other risks, including, but not limited to those pertaining to:

Any of the foregoing risks, among others, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

management fee income and incentive income, increasing the cost of financial instruments and executing transactions. In addition, market or idiosyncratic factors may make it difficult to raise new capital from investors into our funds. Either or both of these circumstances could result in significantly decreased revenues and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Rapid changes in our AUM may impose substantial demands on our legal, compliance, accounting, risk management, administrative and operational infrastructures. The complexity of these demands, and the time and expense required to address them, is a function not simply of the size of the increase or decrease, but also of significant differences in the investing strategies employed within our funds and the time periods during which these changes occur. For example, expanding our product offerings and entering new lines of business place additional demands on our infrastructure. Furthermore, our future growth will depend on, among other things, our ability to maintain and develop highly reliable operating platforms, management systems and financial reporting and compliance infrastructures that are also sufficiently flexible to promptly and appropriately address our business needs, applicable legal and regulatory requirements and relevant market and other operating conditions, all of which can change rapidly.

Addressing the matters described above may require us to incur significant additional expenses and to commit additional senior management and operational resources, even if we are experiencing declines in AUM.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our operations effectively without incurring substantial additional expense or that we will be able to grow our business and AUM, and any failure to do so could materially adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and control our expenses.

As we expand the number and scope of our business, we increasingly confront potential conflicts of interest relating to our investment activities and our funds' investment activities. Certain of our funds have overlapping investment objectives, and such investment objectives may additionally overlap with any investment objectives of Rithm Capital or one of Rithm Capital's operating companies. Potential conflicts may arise with respect to our decisions regarding how to allocate investment opportunities among us, our funds and our various operating companies and affiliates. For example, we may allocate an investment opportunity that is appropriate for two or more investment funds in a manner that excludes one or more funds or results in a disproportionate allocation based on factors or criteria that we determine, such as sourcing of the transaction, specific nature of the investment or size and type of the investment, among other factors. Additionally, a decision to acquire material non-public information about a company while pursuing an investment opportunity for a particular fund gives rise to a potential conflict of interest when it results in our having to restrict the ability of other funds to buy or sell securities in the

public markets. Our fund investors and our public stockholders may perceive conflicts of interest regarding investment decisions.

    

In addition, the challenge of allocating investment opportunities to certain funds may be exacerbated as we expand our business to include more lines of business. Allocating investment opportunities appropriately frequently involves significant and subjective judgments. In addition, the perception of non-compliance with such requirements or policies could harm our reputation with fund investors and our public stockholders.

    

Our affiliates or portfolio companies may be service providers or counterparties to our funds or portfolio companies and receive fees or other compensation for services that are not shared with our fund investors. In such instances, we may be incentivized to cause our funds or portfolio companies to purchase such services from our affiliates or portfolio companies rather than an unaffiliated service provider despite the fact that a third-party service provider could potentially provide higher quality services or offer them at a lower cost.

It is possible that actual, potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to investor dissatisfaction or litigation or regulatory enforcement actions. While we believe we have appropriate policies and procedures in place to manage conflicts of interest, this process is complex and difficult and our reputation could be damaged if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with one or more potential or actual conflicts of interest. Regulatory scrutiny of, or litigation in connection with, conflicts of interest would have a material adverse effect on our reputation, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations in a number of ways, including an inability to raise additional funds and a reluctance of counterparties to do business with us.

We, our operating companies and portfolio companies in which our funds invest are subject to increasing scrutiny from advocacy groups, government agencies and the general public over various ESG matters. For example, transition risks related to climate change, such as government restrictions, standards or regulations intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and potential climate change impacts, are emerging and may increase in the future in the form of restrictions or additional requirements on the development of real estate. Such restrictions and requirements could impact our investment strategy or could increase costs for certain of our operating companies, which could adversely affect our results of operations. Further, significant physical effects of climate change, including extreme weather events such as hurricanes or floods, can also have an adverse impact on the businesses of certain of our operating companies. As the effects of climate change increase, we expect the frequency and impact of weather and climate-related events and conditions to increase as well. For example, unseasonal or violent weather events can have a material impact on properties owned by our subsidiaries through physical damage to, or a decrease in demand for, properties in the areas affected by these conditions.

Additionally, ESG concerns and other sustainability matters and our response to these matters could harm our business, including in areas such as diversity, equity and inclusion, human rights, climate change and environmental stewardship, support for local communities, corporate governance and transparency and consideration of ESG factors in our investment processes. Increasing governmental, investor and societal attention to ESG matters, including expanding mandatory and voluntary reporting, diligence and disclosure on topics such as climate change, human capital, labor and risk oversight, could expand the nature, scope and complexity of matters that we are required to control, assess and report. These factors may alter the environment in which we do business and may increase the ongoing costs of compliance and adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows. If we or our operating companies are unable to adequately address such ESG matters or fail or are perceived to fail to comply with all laws, regulations, policies and related interpretations, it could negatively impact our reputation, our ability to recruit and retain key personnel and our business results. In addition, if our ESG practices or external ratings do not meet the standards set by investors or other stakeholders, or if we fail, or are perceived to fail, to demonstrate progress toward our ESG goals and initiatives, they may choose not to invest in us or our funds.

Conversely, anti-ESG sentiment has gained momentum across the U.S., with several states having enacted or proposed “anti-ESG” policies, legislation or issued related legal opinions. For example, (i) boycott bills target financial institutions that “boycott” or “discriminate against” companies in certain industries (e.g., energy and mining) and prohibit state entities from doing business with such institutions and/or investing the state’s assets (including pension plan assets) through such institutions and (ii) ESG investment prohibitions require that state entities or managers/administrators of state investments make investments based solely on pecuniary factors without consideration of ESG factors. If investors subject to such legislation viewed our funds or ESG practices, including our climate-related goals and commitments, as being in contradiction of such “anti-ESG” policies, legislation or legal opinions, such investors may not invest in our funds, our ability to maintain the size of our funds could be impaired, and it could negatively affect the price of our common stock. Further, asset managers have been subject to recent scrutiny related to ESG-focused industry working groups, initiatives and associations, including organizations advancing action to address climate change or climate-related risk. Such scrutiny could expose us to the risk of antitrust investigations or challenges by federal authorities, result in reputational harm and discourage certain investors from investing in our funds.

To the extent we consider ESG factors in connection with investments for certain of our funds and other investments, because ESG factors are not universally agreed upon or accepted by investors, our consideration of ESG factors or construction of specific ESG or impact funds could attract opposition from certain segments of our existing and potential client base. Any actual opposition to our consideration of ESG factors could impact our ability to maintain or raise capital for our funds, which may adversely impact our revenues.

S&P, Moody’s and Fitch rate Newrez as a residential loan servicer, and a downgrade of, or failure to maintain, any of these servicer ratings could:

Any of the above could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Interests in MSRs may entail new types of transactions and may involve complex or novel structures. Accordingly, the risks associated with the transactions and structures are not fully known to buyers and sellers. In the case of interests in MSRs on Agency pools, Agencies may require that we submit to costly or burdensome conditions as a prerequisite to their consent to an investment in, or our financing of, interests in MSRs on Agency pools. Agency conditions, including capital requirements, may diminish or eliminate the investment potential of interests in MSRs on Agency pools by making such investments too expensive for us or by severely limiting the potential returns available from interests in MSRs on Agency pools.

It is possible that an Agency’s views on whether any such acquisition structure is appropriate or acceptable may not be known to us when we make an investment and may change from time to time for any reason or for no reason, even with respect to a completed investment. An Agency’s evolving posture toward an acquisition or disposition structure through which we invest in or dispose of interests in MSRs on Agency pools may cause such Agency to impose new conditions on our existing interests in MSRs on Agency pools, including the owner’s ability to hold such interests in MSRs on Agency pools directly or indirectly through a grantor trust or other means. Such new conditions may be costly or burdensome and may diminish or eliminate the investment potential of the interests in MSRs on Agency pools that are already owned by us. Moreover, obtaining such consent may require us or our co-investment counterparties to agree to material structural or economic changes, as well as agree to indemnification or other terms that expose us to risks to which we have not previously been exposed and that could negatively affect our returns from our investments.

We have in the past and intend to continue to finance some or all of the MSRs or servicer advance receivables acquired in certain transactions related to MSRs (the “MSR Transactions”), and as a result, we will be subject to substantial operational risks associated with the related Servicing Partners. In our current financing facilities for interests in MSRs and servicer advance receivables, the failure of the related Servicing Partner to satisfy various covenants and tests can result in an amortization event and/or an event of default. Our financing sources may require us to include similar provisions in any financing we obtain relating to the MSRs and servicer advances acquired in the MSR Transactions. If we decide to finance such assets, we will not have the direct ability to control any party’s compliance with any such covenants and tests and the failure of any party to satisfy any such covenants or tests could result in a partial or total loss on our investment. Some financing sources may be unwilling to finance any assets acquired in the MSR Transactions.

Although we have upsized certain of our advance facilities, if we are not successful in upsizing our facilities in the future, we will need to explore other sources of liquidity and if we are unable to obtain additional liquidity, we may have to take additional actions, including selling assets and reducing our originations to generate liquidity to support our servicer advance obligations.

In addition, any financing for the MSRs and servicer advances acquired in the MSR Transactions may be subject to regulatory approval and the agreement of the relevant Servicing Partner to be party to such financing agreements. If we cannot get regulatory approval or these parties do not agree to be a party to such financing agreements, we may not be able to obtain financing on favorable terms or at all.

We do not have legal title to the MSRs underlying our Excess MSRs or certain of the MSRs related to the transactions contemplated by the purchase agreements pursuant to which we acquire servicer advance investments or MSR financing receivables from Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (“Ocwen”), SLS and Mr. Cooper and are subject to increased risks as a result of the related servicer continuing to own the MSRs. The validity or priority of our interest in the underlying mortgage servicing could be challenged in a bankruptcy proceeding of the servicer and the related purchase agreement could be rejected in such proceeding. Any of the foregoing events might have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. As part of the Ocwen Transaction, we and Ocwen have agreed to cooperate to obtain any third-party consents required to transfer Ocwen’s remaining interest in the Ocwen Subject MSRs to us. As noted above, however, there is no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining those consents.

Many of our investments are illiquid. Illiquidity may result from the absence of an established market for the investments, as well as legal or contractual restrictions on their resale, refinancing or other disposition. Dispositions of investments may be subject to contractual and other limitations on transfer or other restrictions that would interfere with subsequent sales of such investments or adversely affect the terms that could be obtained upon any disposition thereof.

Interests in MSRs are highly illiquid and may be subject to numerous restrictions on transfers, including without limitation the receipt of third-party consents. For example, the Servicing Guidelines of a mortgage owner may require that holders of Excess MSRs obtain the mortgage owner’s prior approval of any change of direct ownership of such Excess MSRs. Such approval may be withheld for any reason or no reason in the discretion of the mortgage owner. Moreover, we have not received and do not

expect to receive any assurances from any GSEs that their conditions for the sale by us of any interests in MSRs will not change. Therefore, the potential costs, issues or restrictions associated with receiving such GSEs’ consent for any such dispositions by us cannot be determined with any certainty. Additionally, interests in MSRs may entail complex transaction structures and the risks associated with the transactions and structures are not fully known to buyers or sellers. As a result of the foregoing, we may be unable to locate a buyer at the time we wish to sell interests in MSRs. There is some risk that we will be required to dispose of interests in MSRs either through an in-kind distribution or other liquidation vehicle, which will, in either case, provide little or no economic benefit to us, or a sale to a co-investor in the interests in MSRs, which may be an affiliate. Accordingly, we cannot provide any assurance that we will obtain any return or any benefit of any kind from any disposition of interests in MSRs. We may not benefit from the full term of the assets and for the aforementioned reasons may not receive any benefits from the disposition, if any, of such assets.

In addition, some of our real estate and other financial instruments, including many of the investments held by our funds, may not be registered under the relevant securities laws, resulting in a prohibition against their transfer, sale, pledge or other disposition except in a transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of, or is otherwise in accordance with, those laws. There are also no established trading markets for a majority of our intended investments.

Moreover, certain of our investments, including our investments in consumer loans and certain of our interests in MSRs, are made indirectly through a vehicle that owns the underlying assets. Our ability to sell our interest may be contractually limited or prohibited. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be limited.

Our real estate and other securities have historically been valued based primarily on third-party quotations, which are subject to significant variability based on the liquidity and price transparency created by market trading activity. A disruption in these trading markets could reduce the trading for many real estate and other securities, resulting in less transparent prices for those securities, which would make selling such assets more difficult. Moreover, a decline in market demand for the types of assets that we hold would make it more difficult to sell our assets. If we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our illiquid investments quickly, we may realize significantly less than the amount at which we have previously valued these investments or may lose some or all of the investment made by our funds.

The geographic distribution of the loans underlying, and collateral securing, our investments, including our interests in MSRs, servicer advances and loans, exposes us to risks associated with the real estate and commercial lending industry in general within the states and regions in which we hold significant investments. These risks include, without limitation: possible declines in the value of real estate; risks related to general and local economic conditions; possible lack of availability of mortgage funds; overbuilding; extended vacancies of properties; increases in competition, property taxes and operating expenses; changes in zoning laws; increased energy costs; unemployment; costs resulting from the clean-up of, and liability to, third parties for damages resulting from, environmental problems; casualty or condemnation losses; uninsured damages from floods, hurricanes, earthquakes or other natural disasters; and changes in interest rates.

As of December 31, 2023, 25.2% and 17.1% of the total UPB of the residential mortgage loans underlying our Excess MSRs and MSRs, respectively, was secured by properties located in California, which are particularly susceptible to natural disasters such as fires, earthquakes and mudslides. 7.1% and 8.6% of the total UPB of the residential mortgage loans underlying our Excess MSRs and MSRs, respectively, was secured by properties located in Florida, which are particularly susceptible to natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. As a result of this concentration, we may be more susceptible to adverse developments in those markets than if we owned a more geographically diverse portfolio. To the extent any of the foregoing risks arise in states and regions where we hold significant investments, the performance of our investments, our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition could suffer a material adverse effect.

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

As a result of alleged deficiencies in foreclosure practices, a number of servicers temporarily suspended foreclosure proceedings beginning in the second half of 2010 while they evaluated their foreclosure practices. In late 2010, a group of state attorneys general and state bank and mortgage regulators representing nearly all 50 states and the District of Columbia, along with the U.S. Justice Department and HUD, began an investigation into foreclosure practices of banks and servicers. The investigations and lawsuits by several state attorneys general led to a settlement agreement in early February 2012 with five of the nation’s largest banks, pursuant to which the banks agreed to pay more than $25.0 billion to settle claims relating to improper foreclosure practices. The settlement does not prohibit the states, the federal government, individuals or investors from pursuing additional actions against the banks and servicers in the future.

Under the terms of the agreements governing our servicer advance investments and MSRs, we (in certain cases, together with third-party co-investors) are required to make or purchase from certain of our Servicing Partners servicer advances on certain loan pools. While a residential mortgage loan is in foreclosure, servicers are generally required to continue to advance delinquent principal and interest and to also make advances for delinquent taxes and insurance and foreclosure costs and the upkeep of vacant property in foreclosure to the extent it determines that such amounts are recoverable. Servicer advances are generally recovered when the delinquency is resolved.

Foreclosure moratoria or other actions that lengthen the foreclosure process increase the amount of servicer advances we or our Servicing Partners are required to make and we are required to purchase, lengthen the time it takes for us to be repaid for such advances and increase the costs incurred during the foreclosure process. In addition, servicer advance financing facilities contain provisions that modify the advance rates for, and limit the eligibility of, servicer advances to be financed based on the length of time that servicer advances are outstanding, and, as a result, an increase in foreclosure timelines could further increase the amount of servicer advances that we need to fund with our own capital. Such increases in foreclosure timelines could increase our need for capital to fund servicer advances (which do not bear interest), which would increase our interest expense, reduce the value of our investment and potentially reduce the cash that we have available to pay our operating expenses or to pay dividends.

Even in states where servicers have not suspended foreclosure proceedings or have lifted (or will soon lift) any such delayed foreclosures, servicers, including our Servicing Partners, have faced, and may continue to face, increased delays and costs in the foreclosure process. For example, the current legislative and regulatory climate could lead borrowers to contest foreclosures that they would not otherwise have contested under ordinary circumstances, and servicers may incur increased litigation costs if the validity of a foreclosure action is challenged by a borrower. In general, regulatory developments with respect to foreclosure practices could result in increases in the amount of servicer advances and the length of time to recover servicer advances, fines or increases in operating expenses, and decreases in the advance rate and availability of financing for servicer advances. This would lead to increased borrowings, reduced cash and higher interest expenses which could negatively impact our liquidity and profitability. Although the terms of our servicer advance investments contain adjustment mechanisms that would reduce the amount of performance fees payable to the related Servicing Partner if servicer advances exceed pre-determined amounts, those fee reductions may not be sufficient to cover the expenses resulting from longer foreclosure timelines.

The integrity of the servicing and foreclosure processes is critical to the value of the residential mortgage loans in which we invest and of the portfolios of loans underlying our interests in MSRs and RMBS, and our financial results could be adversely affected by deficiencies in the conduct of those processes. For example, delays in the foreclosure process that have resulted from investigations into improper servicing practices may adversely affect the values of, and result in losses on, these investments. Foreclosure delays may also increase the administrative expenses of the securitization trusts for the RMBS, thereby reducing the amount of funds available for distribution to investors.

In addition, the subordinate classes of securities issued by the securitization trusts may continue to receive interest payments while the defaulted loans remain in the trusts, rather than absorbing the default losses. This may reduce the amount of credit support available for senior classes of RMBS that we may own, thus possibly adversely affecting these securities. Additionally, a substantial portion of the $25.0 billion settlement is a “credit” to the banks and servicers for principal write-downs or reductions they may make to certain mortgages underlying RMBS. There remains uncertainty as to how these principal reductions will work and what effect they will have on the value of related RMBS. As a result, there can be no assurance that any such principal reductions will not adversely affect the value of our interests in MSRs and RMBS.

While we believe that the sellers and servicers would be in violation of the applicable Servicing Guidelines to the extent that they have improperly serviced mortgage loans or improperly executed documents in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings, or do not comply with the terms of servicing contracts when deciding whether to apply principal reductions, it may be difficult, expensive, time consuming and, ultimately, uneconomic for us to enforce our contractual rights. While we cannot predict exactly how the servicing and foreclosure matters or the resulting litigation or settlement agreements will affect our business,

there can be no assurance that these matters will not have an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Rithm Capital and third-party co-investors, through a joint venture entity, Advance Purchaser LLC, have agreed to purchase all future arising servicer advances from Mr. Cooper under certain residential mortgage servicing agreements. Advanced Purchaser relies, in part, on its members to make committed capital contributions in order to pay the purchase price for future servicer advances. A failure by any or all of the members to make such capital contributions for amounts required to fund servicer advances could result in an event of default under our advance facilities and a complete loss of our investment.

The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property is dependent upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors may impair borrowers’ abilities to repay their loans, including, among other things, changes in the borrower’s employment status, changes in national, regional or local economic conditions, changes in interest rates or the availability of credit on favorable terms, changes in regional or local real estate values, changes in regional or local rental rates and changes in real estate taxes. Rapidly rising interest rates and/or economic downturns may impair borrowers’ ability to repay their loans, particularly if the impact were to be sustained.

Our mortgage-backed securities are securities backed by mortgage loans. Many of the RMBS in which we invest are backed by collateral pools of subprime residential mortgage loans. “Subprime” mortgage loans refer to mortgage loans that have been originated using underwriting standards that are less restrictive than the underwriting requirements used as standards for other first and junior lien mortgage loan purchase programs, such as the programs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These lower standards include mortgage loans made to borrowers having imperfect or impaired credit histories (including outstanding judgments or prior bankruptcies), mortgage loans where the amount of the loan at origination is 80% or more of the value of the mortgage property, mortgage loans made to borrowers with low credit scores, mortgage loans made to borrowers who have other debt that represent a large portion of their income and mortgage loans made to borrowers whose income is not required to be disclosed or verified. Subprime mortgage loans may 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. To the extent losses are realized on the loans underlying the securities in which we invest, we may not recover the amount invested in, or, in extreme cases, any of our investment in such securities.

Residential mortgage loans, including manufactured housing loans and subprime mortgage loans are secured by single-family residential property and are also subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss. A significant portion of the residential mortgage loans that we acquire are, or may become, sub-performing loans, non-performing loans or REO assets where the borrower has failed to make timely payments of principal and/or interest. As part of the residential mortgage loan portfolios we purchase, we also may acquire performing loans that are or subsequently become sub-performing or non-performing, meaning the borrowers fail to timely pay some or all of the required payments of principal and/or interest. Under current market conditions, it is likely that some of these loans will have current loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratios in excess of 100%, meaning the amount owed on the loan exceeds the value of the underlying real estate.

In the event of default under a residential 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 outstanding principal and accrued but unpaid interest of the loan. Even though we typically pay less than the amount owed on these loans to acquire them, if actual results differ from our assumptions in determining the price we paid to acquire such loans, we may incur significant losses. In addition, we may acquire REO assets directly, which involves the same risks. Any loss we incur may be significant and could materially and adversely affect us.

Real estate and other securities, including CLOs, are subject to changes in credit spreads. Credit spreads measure the yield demanded on securities by the market based on their credit relative to a specific benchmark. The significant dislocation in the financial markets due to ongoing supply-demand imbalances have caused, among other things, credit spread widening.

CLOs invest on a leveraged basis in loans or securities that are themselves highly leveraged investments in the underlying collateral, which increases both the opportunity for higher returns as well as the magnitude of losses when compared to unlevered investments. As a result of CLOs’ leveraged position, CLOs and their investors are at greater risk of suffering losses. Any failure by our CLOs to meet certain overcollateralization and interest coverage tests will result in reduced cash flows that may have been otherwise available for distribution to us. This could reduce the value of our investment.

Additionally, fixed-rate securities are valued based on a market credit spread over the rate payable on fixed-rate U.S. Treasuries of like maturity. Certain of our floating rate securities are valued based on a market credit spread over the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”) and are affected similarly by changes in SOFR spreads. Additionally, the interest rates on the CLO Investments Loans are variable based on SOFR or the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (“EURIBOR”) (subject to a floor of zero percent). As of December 31, 2023, 35.6% of our Non-Agency RMBS Portfolio consists of floating rate securities and 64.4% consists of fixed-rate securities, and 100.0% of our Agency RMBS portfolio consists of fixed-rate securities, based on the amortized cost basis of all securities (including the amortized cost basis of interest-only and residual classes). Excessive supply of these securities combined with reduced demand will generally cause the market to require a higher yield on these securities, resulting in the use of a higher, or “wider,” spread over the benchmark rate to value such securities. Under such conditions, the value of our real estate and other securities portfolios would tend to decline. Conversely, if the spread used to value such securities were to decrease, or “tighten,” the value of our real estate and other securities portfolio would tend to increase. Such changes in the market value of our real estate securities portfolios may affect our net equity, net income or cash flow directly through their impact on unrealized gains or losses on available-for-sale securities, and therefore our ability to realize gains on such securities, or indirectly through their impact on our ability to borrow and access capital. Widening credit spreads could cause the net unrealized gains on our securities and derivatives, recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income or retained earnings, and therefore our book value per share, to decrease and result in net losses.

In general, residential mortgage loans may be prepaid at any time without penalty. Prepayments result when homeowners/mortgagors satisfy (i.e., pay off) the mortgage upon selling or refinancing their mortgaged property. When we acquire a particular loan or security, we anticipate that the loan or underlying residential mortgage loans will prepay at a projected rate which, together with expected coupon income, provides us with an expected yield on such investments. If we purchase assets at a premium to par value, and borrowers prepay their mortgage loans faster than expected, the corresponding prepayments on our assets may reduce the expected yield on such assets because we will have to amortize the related premium on an accelerated basis. Conversely, if we purchase assets at a discount to par value, when borrowers prepay their mortgage loans slower than expected, the decrease in corresponding prepayments on our assets may reduce the expected yield on such assets because we will not be able to accrete the related discount as quickly as originally anticipated.

Prepayment rates on loans are influenced by changes in mortgage and market interest rates and a variety of economic, geographic, political and other factors, all of which are beyond our control. Consequently, such prepayment rates cannot be predicted with certainty and no strategy can completely insulate us from prepayment or other such risks. In periods of declining interest rates, prepayment rates on mortgage loans generally increase. If general interest rates decline at the same time, the proceeds of such prepayments received during such periods are likely to be reinvested by us in assets yielding less than the yields on the assets that were prepaid. In addition, the market value of our loans and real estate and other securities may, because of the risk of prepayment, benefit less than other fixed-income securities from declining interest rates.

We may purchase assets that have a higher or lower coupon rate than the prevailing market interest rates. In exchange for a higher coupon rate, we would then pay a premium over par value to acquire these securities. In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), we would amortize the premiums over the life of the related assets. If the mortgage loans securing these assets prepay at a more rapid rate than anticipated, we would have to amortize our premiums on an accelerated basis which may adversely affect our profitability. As compensation for a lower coupon rate, we would then pay a discount to par value to acquire these assets. In accordance with GAAP, we would accrete any discounts over the life of the related assets. If the mortgage loans securing these assets prepay at a slower rate than anticipated, we would have to accrete our discounts on an extended basis which may adversely affect our profitability. Defaults on the mortgage loans underlying Agency RMBS typically have the same effect as prepayments because of the underlying Agency guarantee.

Prepayments, which are the primary feature of mortgage-backed securities that distinguish them from other types of bonds, are difficult to predict and can vary significantly over time. As the holder of the security, on a monthly basis, we receive a payment equal to a portion of our investment principal in a particular security as the underlying mortgages are prepaid. In general, on the date each month that principal prepayments are announced (i.e., factor day), the value of our real estate related security pledged as collateral under our repurchase agreements is reduced by the amount of the prepaid principal and, as a result, our lenders will

typically initiate a margin call requiring the pledge of additional collateral or cash, in an amount equal to such prepaid principal, in order to re-establish the required ratio of borrowing to collateral value under such repurchase agreements. Accordingly, with respect to our Agency RMBS, the announcement on factor day of principal prepayments is in advance of our receipt of the related scheduled payment, thereby creating a short-term receivable for us in the amount of any such principal prepayments. However, under our repurchase agreements, we may receive a margin call relating to the related reduction in value of our Agency RMBS and, prior to receipt of this short-term receivable, be required to post additional collateral or cash in the amount of the principal prepayment on or about factor day, which would reduce our liquidity during the period in which the short-term receivable is outstanding. As a result, in order to meet any such margin calls, we could be forced to sell assets in order to maintain liquidity. Forced sales under adverse market conditions may result in lower sales prices than ordinary market sales made in the normal course of business. If our real estate and other securities were liquidated at prices below our amortized cost (i.e., the cost basis) of such assets, we would incur losses, which could adversely affect our earnings. In addition, in order to continue to earn a return on this prepaid principal, we must reinvest it in additional real estate and other securities or other assets; however, if interest rates decline, we may earn a lower return on our new investments as compared to the real estate and other securities that prepay.

Prepayments may have a negative impact on our financial results, the effects of which depend on, among other things, the timing and amount of the prepayment delay on our Agency RMBS, the amount of unamortized premium or discount on our loans and real estate and other securities, the rate at which prepayments are made on our Non-Agency RMBS, the reinvestment lag and the availability of suitable reinvestment opportunities.

We are required to periodically evaluate our investments for impairment indicators. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based on a variety of factors depending upon the nature of the investment and the manner in which the income related to such investment was calculated for purposes of our financial statements. If we determine that an impairment has occurred, we are required to make an adjustment to the net carrying value of the investment, which would adversely affect our results of operations in the applicable period and thereby adversely affect our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

We leverage certain of our assets through a variety of borrowings. Our investment guidelines do not limit the amount of leverage we may incur with respect to any specific asset or pool of assets. The return we are able to earn on our investments and cash available for distribution to our stockholders may be significantly reduced due to changes in market conditions, which may cause the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income that can be derived from our assets.

When available, a match funding strategy mitigates the risk of not being able to refinance an investment on favorable terms or at all. However, we may elect for us to bear a level of refinancing risk on a short-term or longer-term basis, as in the case of investments financed with repurchase agreements, when, based on its analysis, we determine that bearing such risk is advisable or unavoidable. In addition, we may be unable, as a result of conditions in the credit markets, to match fund our investments. For example, non-recourse term financing not subject to margin requirements has been more difficult to obtain, which impairs our ability to match fund our investments. Moreover, we may not be able to enter into interest rate swaps. A decision not to, or the inability to, match fund certain investments exposes us to additional risks.

Furthermore, we anticipate that, in most cases, for any period during which our floating rate assets are not match funded with respect to maturity, the income from such assets may respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Because of this dynamic, interest income from such investments may rise more slowly than the related interest expense, with a consequent decrease in our net income. Interest rate fluctuations resulting in our interest expense exceeding interest income would result in operating losses for us from these investments.

Accordingly, to the extent our investments are not match funded with respect to maturities and interest rates, we are exposed to the risk that we may not be able to finance or refinance our investments on economically favorable terms, or at all, or may have to liquidate assets at a loss.

We are subject to risks related to the cessation of the use of LIBOR as of June 30, 2023. The publication of USD LIBOR for certain tenors and all non-USD LIBOR tenors ceased after December 31, 2021 (other than certain sterling and Japanese yen settings being published on a synthetic temporary basis). Banks reporting information used to set USD LIBOR for all other tenors were required to stop doing so after June 30, 2023. We completed our transition away from LIBOR as of June 30, 2023.

More generally, any of the above changes or any other consequential changes to SOFR or any other “benchmark,” including EURIBOR, as a result of international, national or other proposals for reform or other initiatives or investigations, or any further uncertainty in relation to the timing and manner of implementation of such changes, could have a material adverse effect on the value of and return on any securities based on or linked to a “benchmark.”

We may use, when feasible and appropriate, derivatives to hedge a portion of our interest rate exposure, and this approach has certain risks, including the risk that losses on a hedge position will reduce the cash available for distribution to stockholders and that such losses may exceed the amount invested in such instruments. We have adopted a general policy with respect to the use of derivatives, which generally allows us to use derivatives where appropriate, but does not set forth specific policies and procedures or require that we hedge any specific amount of risk. From time to time, we may use derivative instruments, including forwards, futures, swaps and options, in our risk management strategy to limit the effects of changes in interest rates on our operations. A hedge may not be effective in eliminating all of the risks inherent in any particular position. Our profitability may be adversely affected during any period as a result of the use of derivatives.

There are limits to the ability of any hedging strategy to protect us completely against interest rate risks. When rates change, we expect the gain or loss on derivatives to be offset by a related but inverse change in the value of any items that we hedge. We cannot assure you, however, that our use of derivatives will offset the risks related to changes in interest rates. We cannot assure you that our hedging strategy and the derivatives that we use will adequately offset the risk of interest rate volatility or that our hedging transactions will not result in losses. In addition, our hedging strategy may limit our flexibility by causing us to refrain from taking certain actions that would be potentially profitable but would cause adverse consequences under the terms of our hedging arrangements. Moreover, our hedging strategy may reduce our liquidity position by causing us to take certain actions, such as taking physical delivery of the underlying securities and funding those assets with cash or other financing sources if it were to become uneconomical to roll our TBA contracts into future months. The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code limit our ability to hedge. In managing our hedge instruments, we consider the effect of the expected hedging income on the REIT qualification tests that limit the amount of gross income that a REIT may receive from hedging. We need to carefully monitor, and may have to limit, our hedging strategy to assure that we do not realize hedging income, or hold hedges having a value, in excess of the amounts that would cause us to fail the REIT gross income and asset tests. See “—Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT—Complying with the REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively.”

Accounting for derivatives under GAAP is complicated. Any failure by us to account for our derivatives properly in accordance with GAAP in our financial statements could adversely affect us. In addition, under applicable accounting standards, we may be required to treat some of our investments as derivatives, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

The market in which we operate is affected by a number of factors that are largely beyond our control but can nonetheless have a potentially significant, negative impact on us. These factors include, among other things:

Additionally, these factors could result in a decline in our AUM, lowering management fees and incentive income, an increase in the cost of financial instruments or executing transactions, lower or negative investment returns, reduced demand for assets held by our funds and increased investor redemptions.

Changes in these factors are difficult to predict and a change in one factor can affect other factors. Further, at various points in time, increased default rates in the subprime mortgage market played a role in causing credit spreads to widen, reducing availability of credit on favorable terms, reducing liquidity and price transparency of assets, resulting in difficulty in obtaining accurate mark-to-market valuations and causing a negative perception of the state of the real estate markets and of REITs generally. Market conditions could be volatile or could deteriorate as a result of a variety of factors beyond our control with adverse effects to our financial condition.

The securitization of any loans that we originate and/or service subject us to various risks that may increase our compliance costs and adversely impact our financial results, including:

Certain vendors currently have operations located in India, which is subject to relatively higher political and social instability than the U.S. and may lack the infrastructure to withstand political unrest, natural disasters or global pandemics. The political or

regulatory climate in the U.S., or elsewhere, also could change so that it would not be lawful or practical for us to use vendors with international operations in the manner in which we currently use them. If we could no longer utilize vendors operating in India or if those vendors were required to transfer some or all of their operations to another geographic area, we would incur significant transition costs as well as higher future overhead costs that could materially and adversely affect our results of operations.

The Genesis business is subject to a number of risks including, but not limited to, the following:

Many of these factors are outside of our control and any one of them could result in delays, increased costs, decreases in the amount of expected revenues and diversion of management’s time and energy, which could materially affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In connection with certain MSR acquisitions, servicing is transferred from the seller to a subservicer appointed by us. The ability to integrate and service the assets acquired will depend in large part on the success of our subservicer’s integration of expanded servicing capabilities with its current operations. We may fail to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits of these transactions if the integration process takes longer, or is more costly, than expected. Potential difficulties we may encounter during the integration process with the assets acquired in MSR acquisitions involving servicing transfers include, but are not limited to, the following:

Our failure to meet the challenges involved in successfully integrating the assets acquired in MSR acquisitions involving servicing transfers with our current business could impair our operations. For example, it is possible that the data our applicable subservicer acquires upon assuming the direct servicing obligations for the loans may not transfer from the seller’s platform to its systems properly. This may result in data being lost, key information not being locatable on our applicable subservicer’s systems, or the complete failure of the transfer. If our employees are unable to access customer information easily or are unable to produce originals or copies of documents or accurate information about the loans, collections could be affected significantly, and our subservicer may not be able to enforce its right to collect in some cases. Similarly, collections could be affected by any changes to our applicable subservicer’s collections practices, the restructuring of any key servicing functions, transfer of files and other changes that occur as a result of the transfer of servicing obligations from the seller to our subservicer.

In certain of these circumstances, the related Servicing Partner may be terminated without any right to compensation for its loss, other than the right to be reimbursed for any outstanding servicer advances as the related loans are brought current, modified, liquidated or charged off. So long as we are in compliance with our obligations under our servicing agreements and purchase agreements, if we or one of our Servicing Partners is terminated as servicer, we may have the right to receive an indemnification payment from the applicable Servicing Partner, even if such termination related to servicer termination events or events of default existing at the time of any transaction with such Servicing Partner. If one of our Servicing Partners is terminated as servicer under a PSA, we will lose any investment related to such Servicing Partner’s MSRs. If we or such Servicing Partner is terminated as servicer with respect to a PSA and we are unable to enforce our contractual rights against such Servicing Partner, or if such Servicing Partner is unable to make any resulting indemnification payments to us, if any such

payment is due and payable, it may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, ability to make distributions, liquidity and financing arrangements, including our servicer advance financing facilities, and may make it more difficult for us to acquire additional interests in MSRs in the future.

Certain servicing contracts permit more than one party to exercise a cleanup call—meaning the right of a party to collapse a securitization trust by purchasing all of the remaining loans held by the securitization trust pursuant to the terms set forth in the applicable servicing agreement. While the servicers from which we acquired our cleanup call rights (or other servicers from which these servicers acquired MSRs) may be named as the party entitled to exercise such rights, certain third parties may also be permitted to exercise such rights. If any such third party exercises a cleanup call, we could lose our ability to exercise our cleanup call right and, as a result, lose the ability to generate positive returns with respect to the related securitization transaction. In addition, another party could impair our ability to exercise our cleanup call rights by contesting our rights (for example, by claiming that they hold the exclusive cleanup call right with respect to the applicable securitization trust). Moreover, because the ability to exercise a cleanup call right is governed by the terms of the applicable servicing agreement, any ambiguous or conflicting language regarding the exercise of such rights in the agreement may make it more difficult and costly to exercise a cleanup call right. Finally, many of our call rights are not currently exercisable and may not become exercisable for a period of years. As a result, our ability to realize the benefits from these rights will depend on a number of factors at the time they become exercisable many of which are outside our control, including interest rates, conditions in the capital markets and conditions in the residential mortgage market.

The exercise of cleanup call rights results in the termination of the MSRs on the loans held within the related securitization trusts. To the extent we own interests in MSRs with respect to loans held within securitization trusts where cleanup call rights are exercised, whether they are exercised by us or a third party, the value of our interests in those MSRs will likely be reduced to zero and we could incur losses and reduced cash flows from any such interests.

We have acquired MSRs and may in the future acquire additional MSRs from third-party mortgage loan originators, brokers or other sellers, and we therefore are or will become dependent on such third parties for the related mortgage loans’ compliance with applicable law, and on third-party mortgage servicers, including our Servicing Partners, to perform the day-to-day servicing on the mortgage loans underlying any such MSRs. Mortgage loan originators and brokers are subject to strict and evolving consumer protection laws and other legal obligations with respect to the origination of residential mortgage loans. These laws and regulations include the residential mortgage servicing standards, “ability-to-repay” and “qualified mortgage” regulations promulgated by the CFPB, which became effective in 2014. In addition, there are various other federal, state, and local laws and regulations that are intended to discourage predatory lending practices by residential mortgage loan originators. These laws may be highly subjective and open to interpretation, and, as a result, a regulator or court may determine that that there has been a violation where an originator or servicer of mortgage loans reasonably believed that the law or requirement had been satisfied. Failure or alleged failure by originators or servicers to comply with these laws and regulations could subject us to state or CFPB administrative proceedings, which could result in monetary penalties, license suspensions or revocations, or restrictions to our business, all of which could adversely impact our business and financial results and damage our reputation.

The final servicing rules promulgated by the CFPB to implement certain sections of the Dodd-Frank Act include provisions relating to, among other things, periodic billing statements and disclosures, responding to borrower inquiries and complaints, force-placed insurance, and adjustable-rate mortgage interest rate adjustment notices. Further, the mortgage servicing rules require servicers to, among other things, make good faith early intervention efforts to notify delinquent borrowers of loss mitigation options, to implement specified loss mitigation procedures, and if feasible, exhaust all loss mitigation options before proceeding to foreclosure. Proposed updates to further refine these rules have been published and will likely lead to further changes in requirements applicable to servicing mortgage loans.

In addition to Newrez, we engage third-party servicers to subservice mortgage loans relating to any MSRs we acquire. It is therefore possible that a third-party servicer’s failure to comply with the new and evolving servicing protocols could adversely affect the value of the MSRs we acquire. Additionally, we may become subject to fines, penalties or civil liability based upon

the conduct of any third-party servicer who services mortgage loans related to MSRs that we have acquired or will acquire in the future.

We hold investments in MSRs. Our investments in MSRs may subject us to certain additional risks, including the following:

Our business, results of operations, financial condition and reputation could be adversely impacted if we are not able to successfully manage these or other risks related to investing in and managing MSR investments.

In addition to general, regional, national, and international economic conditions, our operating performance will be impacted by the economic conditions in our markets. We base a part of our business plan on our belief that property values and operating fundamentals for SFR properties in our markets will continue to improve over the near to intermediate term. However, these markets could experience substantial economic downturns in the future. We can provide no assurance as to the extent property values and operating fundamentals in these markets will improve, if at all. If an economic downturn in these markets occurs or if we fail to accurately predict the timing of economic improvement in these markets, the value of our properties could decline and our ability to execute our business plan may be adversely affected to a greater extent than if we owned a real estate portfolio that was more geographically diversified, which could adversely affect our financial condition, operating results and ability to make distributions to our stockholders and cause the value of our common stock to decline.

Our success with respect to our SFR properties business depends in large part upon our ability to attract and retain qualified residents for our properties. We face competition for residents from other lessors of SFR properties, apartment buildings and condominium units. Competing properties may be newer, better located and more attractive to residents. Potential competitors may have lower rates of occupancy than we do or may have superior access to capital and other resources, which may result in competing owners more easily locating residents and leasing available housing at lower rental rates than we might offer at our homes. Many of these competitors may successfully attract residents with better incentives and amenities, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain quality residents and lease our SFR properties on favorable terms. Additionally, some competing housing options may qualify for government subsidies that may make such options more accessible and therefore more attractive than our properties. This competition may affect our ability to attract and retain residents and may reduce the

rental rates we are able to charge. In addition, increases in unemployment levels and other adverse changes in economic conditions in our markets may adversely affect the creditworthiness of potential residents, which may decrease the overall number of qualified residents for our properties within such markets. We could also be adversely affected by overbuilding or high vacancy rates of homes in our markets, which could result in an excess supply of homes and reduce occupancy and rental rates. Continuing development of apartment buildings and condominium units in many of our markets will increase the supply of housing and exacerbate competition for residents.

In addition, improving economic conditions, along with government sponsored programs to promote home ownership, have made home ownership more accessible for potential renters who have strong credit. These factors may encourage potential renters to purchase residences rather than lease them, thereby causing a decline in the number and quality of potential residents available to us.

No assurance can be given that we will be able to attract and retain suitable residents. If we are unable to lease our homes to suitable residents, we would be adversely affected, and the value of our common stock could decline.

Many of the expenses associated with our SFR business, such as property taxes, HOA fees, insurance, utilities, acquisition, renovation and maintenance costs and other general corporate expenses are relatively inflexible and will not necessarily decrease with a reduction in revenue from our business. Some components of our fixed assets depreciate more rapidly and require ongoing capital expenditures. Our expenses and ongoing capital expenditures are also affected by inflationary increases and certain of our cost increases may exceed the rate of inflation in any given period or market. Our rental income is affected by many factors beyond our control, such as the availability of alternative rental housing and economic conditions in our markets.

In addition, state and local regulations may require us to maintain properties that we own, even if the cost of maintenance is greater than the value of the property or any potential benefit from renting the property, or pass regulations that limit our ability to increase rental rates. As a result, we may not be able to fully offset rising costs and capital spending by increasing rental rates, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash available for distribution.

Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political considerations and other factors beyond our control. Our primary interest rate exposures relate to our interests in MSRs, RMBS, loans, derivatives, CLOs, any floating rate debt obligations that we may incur and preferred stock that periodically resets. Changes in interest rates, including changes in expected interest rates or “yield curves,” affect our business in a number of ways. Changes in the general level of interest rates can affect our net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income earned on our interest-earning assets and the interest expense incurred in connection with our interest-bearing liabilities and hedges. Changes in the level of interest rates also can affect, among other things, our ability to acquire real estate and other securities and loans at attractive prices, the value of our real estate and other securities, loans and derivatives and our ability to realize gains from the sale of such assets. Additionally, with respect to our SFR business, in an inflationary environment, we may not be able to raise rents sufficiently to keep up with the rate of inflation. We may wish to use hedging transactions to protect certain positions from interest rate fluctuations, but we may not be able to do so as a result of market conditions, regulations and other legal rules applicable to REITs or other reasons. In such event, interest rate fluctuations could adversely affect our financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Until recently, the Federal Reserve maintained interest rates close to zero. In 2022, however, in response to the inflationary pressures—driven by ongoing supply chain disruptions, the lingering effect of fiscal stimulus, and the war in Ukraine—the Federal Reserve rapidly raised interest rates. The Federal Reserve continued to steadily increase interest rates through July 2023, holding interest rates steady through the remainder of 2023. Additionally, the Federal Reserve has indicated it anticipates three rate cuts over the course of 2024. Rising interest rates have resulted in increased interest expense on our outstanding variable rate and future variable and fixed-rate debt, thereby adversely affecting cash flow and our ability to service our indebtedness and pay distributions. In addition, in the event of a significant rising interest rate environment and/or economic downturn, loan origination volume may decrease and negatively impact our operating results. Additionally, loan and collateral defaults may increase and result in credit losses that would adversely affect our liquidity and operating results.

Our ability to execute our business strategy, particularly the growth of our investment portfolio, depends to a significant degree on our ability to obtain additional capital. Our financing strategy is mainly dependent on our ability to place the debt we use to finance our investments at rates that provide a positive net spread. If spreads for such liabilities widen or if demand for such liabilities ceases to exist, then our ability to execute future financings will be severely restricted.

Interest rate changes may also impact our net book value as most of our investments are marked to market each quarter. Debt obligations are not marked to market. Generally, as interest rates increase, the value of our fixed-rate securities decreases, which will decrease the book value of our equity.

Furthermore, shifts in the U.S. Treasury yield curve reflecting an increase in interest rates would also affect the yield required on our investments and therefore their value. For example, increasing interest rates would reduce the value of the fixed-rate assets we hold at the time because the higher yields required by increased interest rates result in lower market prices on existing fixed-rate assets in order to adjust the yield upward to meet the market and vice versa. This would have similar effects on our real estate and other securities and loan portfolio and our financial position and operations to a change in interest rates generally.

A prolonged economic slowdown could adversely affect our operations due to unstable or unpredictable market conditions. Additionally, we believe the risks associated with our business are more severe during periods in which an economic slowdown or recession is accompanied by declining real estate values. Declining real estate values generally reduce the level of new mortgage loan originations, since borrowers often use increases in the value of their existing properties to support the purchase of, or investment in, additional properties. Borrowers may also be less able to pay principal and interest on our loans or the loans underlying our securities, interests in MSRs and servicer advances, in a weakening real estate economy. Further, declining real estate values significantly increase the likelihood that we will incur losses on our investments in the event of default because the value of our collateral may be insufficient to cover our basis. Any sustained period of increased payment

delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect our net interest income from the assets in our portfolio, which would significantly harm our revenues, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, business prospects and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Additionally, as a global alternative asset manager, we seek to generate consistent, positive, absolute returns across all market cycles for the investors in our funds. Our ability to do this has been, and in the future may be, materially impacted by conditions in the global credit or equity financial markets and economic and geopolitical conditions worldwide. Unpredictable or unstable market, economic or geopolitical conditions have resulted and may in the future result in reduced opportunities to find suitable risk-adjusted investments to deploy capital and make it more difficult to exit and realize value from our existing investments, which could materially adversely affect our ability to raise new funds and increase our AUM and, therefore, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Regulatory actions or legal proceedings against certain of our Servicing Partners or our subsidiaries could increase our financing costs or operating expenses, reduce our revenues or otherwise materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. Such Servicing Partners or subsidiaries may be subject to additional federal and state regulatory matters in the future that could materially and adversely affect the value of our investments to the extent we rely on them to achieve our investment objectives because we have no direct ability to influence their performance. Certain of our Servicing Partners and subsidiaries have disclosed certain matters in their periodic reports filed with the SEC and there can be no assurance that such events will not have a material adverse effect on them. We are currently evaluating the impact of such events and cannot assure you what impact these events may have or what actions we may take under our agreements with the servicer. In addition, any of our Servicing Partners could be removed as servicer by the related loan owner or certain other transaction counterparties, which could have a material adverse effect on our interests in the loans and MSRs serviced by such Servicing Partner.

In addition, certain of our Servicing Partners and subsidiaries have been and continue to be subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, information requests and subpoenas, inquiries, investigations and threatened legal actions and proceedings. In connection with formal and informal inquiries, such Servicing Partners and subsidiaries may receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of their activities, including whether certain of their residential loan servicing and origination practices, bankruptcy practices and other aspects of their business comply with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. Such Servicing Partners and subsidiaries cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of any of the aforementioned actions, proceedings or inquiries, or that such outcomes will not have a material adverse effect on their reputation, business, prospects, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Mortgage servicers must comply with U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations. These laws and regulations cover topics such as licensing; allowable fees and loan terms; permissible servicing and debt collection practices; limitations on forced-placed insurance; special consumer protections in connection with default and foreclosure; and protection of confidential, nonpublic consumer information. The volume of new or modified laws and regulations has increased in recent years, and states and individual cities and counties continue to enact laws that either restrict or impose additional obligations in connection with certain loan origination, acquisition and servicing activities in those cities and counties. The laws and regulations are complex and vary greatly among the states and localities, and in some cases, these laws are in conflict with each other or with U.S. federal law. In connection with the MSR Transactions, there is no assurance that each transfer of MSRs to our selected subservicer will be approved by the requisite regulators. If regulatory approval for each such transfer is not obtained, we may incur additional costs and expenses in connection with the approval of another replacement subservicer.

Certain jurisdictions require a license to purchase, hold, enforce or sell residential mortgage loans and/or MSRs. In the event that any licensing requirement is applicable to us, and we do not hold such licenses, there can be no assurance that we will obtain such licenses or, if obtained, that we will be able to maintain them. Our failure to obtain or maintain such licenses could restrict our ability to invest in loans in these jurisdictions if such licensing requirements are applicable. With respect to mortgage loans, in lieu of obtaining such licenses, we may contribute our acquired residential mortgage loans to one or more

wholly-owned trusts whose trustee is a national bank, which may be exempt from state licensing requirements. We have formed one or more subsidiaries to apply for certain state licenses. If these subsidiaries obtain the required licenses, any trust holding loans in the applicable jurisdictions may transfer such loans to such subsidiaries, resulting in these loans being held by a state-licensed entity. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain the requisite licenses in a timely manner or at all or in all necessary jurisdictions, or that the use of the trusts will reduce the requirement for licensing. In addition, even if we obtain necessary licenses, we may not be able to maintain them. Any of these circumstances could limit our ability to invest in residential mortgage loans or MSRs in the future and have a material adverse effect on us.

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 1940 Act. We believe we will not be considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act because we will not engage primarily, or hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. However, under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act, because we are a holding company that will conduct its businesses primarily through wholly-owned and majority owned subsidiaries, the securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we may own, may not have a combined value in excess of 40% of the value of our total assets (exclusive of U.S. Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis, unless another exclusion from the definition of “investment company” is available to us. For purposes of the foregoing, we currently treat our interest in our SLS Servicer Advance Investment and our subsidiaries that hold consumer loans as investment securities because these subsidiaries presently rely on the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act. The 40% test under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act limits the types of businesses in which we may engage through our subsidiaries. In addition, the assets we and our subsidiaries may originate or acquire are limited by the provisions of the 1940 Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the 1940 Act, which may adversely affect our business.

If the value of securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we own, exceeds the 40% test under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act (e.g., the value of our interests in the TRSs that hold servicer advance investments and are not excluded from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(5)(A), (B) or (C) of the 1940 Act increases significantly in proportion to the value of our other assets), or if one or more of such subsidiaries fail to maintain an exclusion or exception from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (a) change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (b) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or (c) register as an investment company, any of which could negatively affect the market price of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model and our ability to make distributions. If we or any of our subsidiaries were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, the registered entity would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to capital structure (including the ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the 1940 Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting, proxy disclosure and other rules and regulations that would significantly change our operations.

Failure to maintain an exclusion would require us to significantly restructure our investment strategy. For example, because affiliate transactions are generally prohibited under the 1940 Act, we would not be able to enter into transactions with any of our affiliates if we are required to register as an investment company. If we were required to register as an investment company but failed to do so, we would be prohibited from engaging in our business and criminal and civil actions could be brought against us. In addition, our contracts would be unenforceable unless a court required enforcement and a court could appoint a receiver to take control of us and liquidate our business.

For purposes of the foregoing, we treat our interests in certain of our wholly-owned and majority owned subsidiaries, which constitute more than 60% of the value of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis, as non-investment securities because such subsidiaries qualify for exclusion from the definition of an investment company under the 1940 Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. The Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion is available for entities “primarily engaged” in the business of “purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” The Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion generally requires that at least 55% of these subsidiaries’ assets must comprise qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of each of their portfolios must comprise qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets under the 1940 Act. We expect each of our subsidiaries relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) to rely on guidance published by the SEC staff or on our analyses of such guidance to determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets. However, the SEC’s guidance was issued in accordance with factual situations that may be substantially different from the factual situations each of our subsidiaries may face, and much of the guidance was issued more than 20 years ago. No assurance can be given that the SEC staff will concur with the classification of each of our subsidiaries’ assets. In addition, the SEC staff may, in the future,

issue further guidance that may require us to re-classify some of our subsidiaries’ assets for the purpose of qualifying for an exclusion from regulation under the 1940 Act. For example, the SEC and its staff have not published guidance with respect to the treatment of whole pool Non-Agency RMBS for purposes of the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion. Accordingly, based on our own judgment and analysis of the guidance from the SEC and its staff identifying Agency whole pool certificates as qualifying real estate assets under Section 3(c)(5)(C), we treat whole pool Non-Agency RMBS issued with respect to an underlying pool of mortgage loans in which our subsidiary relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) holds all of the certificates issued by the pool as qualifying real estate assets. Based on our own judgment and analysis of the guidance from the SEC and its staff with respect to analogous assets, we treat Excess MSRs for which we do not own the related servicing rights as real estate-related assets for purposes of satisfying the 80% test under the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion. If we are required to re-classify any of our subsidiaries’ assets, including those subsidiaries holding whole pool Non-Agency RMBS and/or Excess MSRs, such subsidiaries may no longer be in compliance with the exclusion from the definition of an “investment company” provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, and in turn, we may not satisfy the requirements to avoid falling within the definition of an “investment company” provided by Section 3(a)(1)(C). To the extent that the SEC staff publishes new or different guidance or disagrees with our analysis with respect to any assets of our subsidiaries we have determined to be qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. In addition, we may be limited in our ability to make certain investments and these limitations could result in a subsidiary holding assets we might wish to sell or selling assets we might wish to hold.

If the market value or income potential of qualifying assets for purposes of our qualification as a REIT or our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act declines as a result of increased interest rates, changes in prepayment rates or other factors, or the market value or income from non-qualifying assets increases, we may need to increase our investments in qualifying assets and/or liquidate our non-qualifying assets to maintain our REIT qualification or our exclusion from registration under the 1940 Act. If the change in market values 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 we may own. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent the intent to maintain our qualification as a REIT and exclusion from registration under the 1940 Act.

While Rithm Capital is currently not registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act, one or more of our subsidiaries, including Sculptor, is currently required to be registered as an investment adviser and other subsidiaries may be required to register as such in the future, which could subject us to extensive regulation as an investment adviser and could adversely affect our ability to manage our business.

If we register as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act, we will become subject to various requirements under the Advisers Act such as fiduciary duties to clients, anti-fraud provisions, substantive prohibitions and requirements, contractual and record-keeping requirements and administrative oversight by the SEC (primarily by inspection). In addition, if we register as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act, we must continually address potential conflicts between our interests and those of our clients. Although we have established certain policies and procedures designed to mitigate conflicts of interest, there can be no assurance that these policies and procedures will be effective in doing so. It is possible that actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest could give rise to investor dissatisfaction, litigation or regulatory enforcement actions. If we are deemed to be out of compliance with any such rules and regulations, we may be subject to civil liability, criminal liability and/or regulatory sanctions.

When a residential mortgage loan is in foreclosure, the servicer is generally required to continue to advance delinquent principal and interest to the securitization trust and to also make advances for delinquent taxes and insurance and foreclosure costs and the upkeep of vacant property in foreclosure to the extent it determines that such amounts are recoverable. These servicer advances are generally recovered when the delinquency is resolved. Foreclosure moratoria or other actions that lengthen the foreclosure process increase the amount of servicer advances, lengthen the time it takes for reimbursement of such advances and increase the costs incurred during the foreclosure process. In addition, servicer advance financing facilities generally contain provisions that limit the eligibility of servicer advances to be financed based on the length of time that servicer advances are outstanding, and, as a result, an increase in foreclosure timelines could further increase the amount of servicer advances that need to be funded from the related servicer’s own capital. Such increases in foreclosure timelines could increase

the need for capital to fund servicer advances, which would increase our interest expense, delay the collection of interest income or servicing revenue until the foreclosure has been resolved and, therefore, reduce the cash that we have available to pay our operating expenses or to pay dividends.

The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted in July 2010, which affects almost every aspect of the U.S. financial services industry, including certain aspects of the markets in which we operate and imposes new regulations on us and how we conduct our business. As we describe in more detail below, it affects our business in many ways, but it is difficult at this time to know exactly how or what the cumulative impact will be.

Generally, the Dodd-Frank Act strengthens the regulatory oversight of securities and capital markets activities by the SEC and established the CFPB to enforce laws and regulations for consumer financial products and services. It requires market participants to undertake additional record-keeping activities and imposes many additional disclosure requirements for public companies.

Moreover, the Dodd-Frank Act contains a risk retention requirement for all asset-backed securities which we issue. In October 2014, final rules were promulgated by a consortium of regulators implementing the final credit risk retention requirements of Section 941(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Under these “Risk Retention Rules,” sponsors of both public and private securitization transactions or one of their majority owned affiliates are required to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of the assets collateralizing such securitization transactions. These regulations generally prohibit the sponsor or its affiliate from directly or indirectly hedging or otherwise selling or transferring the retained interest for a specified period of time, depending on the type of asset that is securitized. Certain limited exemptions from these rules are available for certain types of assets, which may be of limited use under our current market practices. In any event, compliance with these new Risk Retention Rules has increased and will likely continue to increase the administrative and operational costs of asset securitization.

Further, the Dodd-Frank Act imposes mandatory clearing and exchange-trading requirements on many derivatives transactions (including formerly unregulated over-the-counter derivatives) in which we may engage. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act is expected to increase the margin requirements for derivatives transactions that are not subject to mandatory clearing requirements, which may impact our activities. The Dodd-Frank Act also creates new categories of regulated market participants, such as “swap-dealers,” “security-based swap dealers,” “major swap participants” and “major security-based swap participants,” and subjects or may subject these regulated entities to significant new capital, registration, recordkeeping, reporting, disclosure, business conduct and other regulatory requirements that will give rise to new administrative costs.

Also, under the Dodd-Frank Act, financial regulators belonging to the Financial Stability Oversight Council are authorized to designate nonbank financial institutions and financial activities as systemically important to the economy and therefore subject to closer regulatory supervision. Such systemically important financial institutions (“SIFIs”) may be required to operate with greater safety margins, such as higher levels of capital and may face further limitations on their activities. The determination of what constitutes a SIFI is evolving and in time SIFIs may include large investment funds and even asset managers. There can be no assurance that we will not be deemed to be a SIFI or engage in activities later determined to be systemically important and thus subject to further regulation.

Additionally, in 2013, financial regulators adopted final regulations to implement the statutory mandate of the “Volcker Rule” contained in Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Volcker Rule limits the ability of certain banking entities to acquire as principal, directly or indirectly, ownership interests in certain private investment funds (referred to in the Volcker Rule as covered funds). As a result, the Volcker Rule may cause banking entities and their affiliates that would otherwise invest in our funds to not invest in our funds or CLOs, to invest less capital in our funds or CLOs, reduce or eliminate such investments, or require modifications to the documents governing our funds or CLOs that may adversely affect their performance or attractiveness to other investors or that otherwise may be adverse to our business. The Volcker Rule also includes a general prohibition on certain banking entities engaging in activities defined as “proprietary trading.” Applicable regulators have proposed amendments and invited comments to the Volcker Rule and the requirements of the Volcker Rule may change over time. The Volcker Rule (including any changes thereto) and its effects could negatively impact our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Even new requirements that are not directly applicable to us may still increase our costs of entering into transactions with the parties to whom the requirements are directly applicable. For instance, if the exchange-trading and trade reporting requirements lead to reductions in the liquidity of derivative transactions we may experience higher pricing or reduced availability of derivatives, or the reduction of arbitrage opportunities for us, which could adversely affect the performance of certain of our

trading strategies. Importantly, many key aspects of the changes imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act will continue to be established by various regulatory bodies and other groups over the next several years.

In addition, there is significant uncertainty regarding the legislative and regulatory outlook for the Dodd-Frank Act and related statutes governing financial services, which may include Dodd-Frank Act amendments, mortgage finance and housing policy in the U.S., and the future structure and responsibilities of regulatory agencies such as the CFPB and the FHFA. For example, in March 2018, the U.S. Senate approved banking reform legislation intended to ease some of the restrictions imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act. Due to this uncertainty, it is not possible for us to predict how future legislative or regulatory proposals by Congress and the current administration will affect us or the market and industry in which we operate, and there can be no assurance that the resulting changes will not have an adverse impact on our business, results of operations, or financial condition. It is possible that such regulatory changes could, among other things, increase our costs of operating as a public company, impose restrictions on our ability to securitize assets and reduce our investment returns on securitized assets.

The payments we receive on the Agency RMBS in which we invest depend upon a steady stream of payments by borrowers on the underlying mortgages and the fulfillment of guarantees by GSEs. Ginnie Mae is part of a U.S. Government agency, and its guarantees are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSEs, but their guarantees are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

In response to the deteriorating financial condition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the credit market disruption beginning in 2007, Congress and the U.S. Treasury undertook a series of actions to stabilize these GSEs and the financial markets, generally. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 was signed into law on July 30, 2008, and established the FHFA, with enhanced regulatory authority over, among other things, the business activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the size of their portfolio holdings. On September 7, 2008, FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into federal conservatorship and, together with the U.S. Treasury, established a program designed to boost investor confidence in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s debt and Agency RMBS.

As the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FHFA controls and directs the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and may (1) take over the assets of and operate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with all the powers of the stockholders, the directors and the officers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and conduct all business of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (2) collect all obligations and money due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (3) perform all functions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are consistent with the conservator’s appointment; (4) preserve and conserve the assets and property of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and (5) contract for assistance in fulfilling any function, activity, action or duty of the conservator.

Those efforts resulted in significant U.S. Government financial support and increased control of the GSEs.

The Federal Reserve announced in November 2008 a program of large-scale purchases of Agency RMBS in an attempt to lower longer-term interest rates and contribute to an overall easing of adverse financial conditions. Subject to specified investment guidelines, the portfolios of Agency RMBS purchased through the programs established by the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve may be held to maturity and, based on mortgage market conditions, adjustments may be made to these portfolios. This flexibility may adversely affect the pricing and availability of Agency RMBS that we seek to acquire during the remaining term of these portfolios.

There can be no assurance that the U.S. Government’s intervention in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be adequate for the longer-term viability of these GSEs. These uncertainties lead to questions about the availability of and trading market for, Agency RMBS. Accordingly, if these government actions are inadequate and the GSEs defaulted on their guaranteed obligations, suffered losses or ceased to exist, the value of our Agency RMBS and our business, operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

Additionally, because of the financial problems faced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to their federal conservatorships, the administration and Congress have been examining reform of the GSEs, including the value of a federal mortgage guarantee and the appropriate role for the U.S. government in providing liquidity for residential mortgage loans. It is unclear to what degree any reform will be undertaken and the final details of any plans, policies or proposals with respect to the housing GSEs are unknown at this time. In the past and potentially in this Congress, bills have been introduced that change the GSEs’ business charters and eliminate the entities or make other changes to the existing framework. We cannot predict whether or when such legislation may be enacted. If enacted, such legislation could materially and adversely affect the availability of, and trading

market for, Agency RMBS and could, therefore, materially and adversely affect the value of our Agency RMBS and our business, operations and financial condition.

Our subsidiaries that perform mortgage lending and servicing activities are subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local governmental and regulatory authorities, including the CFPB, the Federal Trade Commission, HUD, VA, the SEC and various state agencies that license, audit, investigate and conduct examinations of such subsidiaries’ mortgage servicing, origination, debt collection and other activities. In the current regulatory environment, the policies, laws, rules and regulations applicable to our subsidiaries’ mortgage origination and servicing businesses have been rapidly evolving. Federal, state or local governmental authorities may continue to enact laws, rules or regulations that will result in changes in our and our subsidiaries’ business practices and may materially increase the costs of compliance. We are unable to predict whether any such changes will adversely affect our business.

We and our subsidiaries must comply with a large number of federal, state and local consumer protection laws including, among others, the Dodd-Frank Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Homeowners Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as well as individual state licensing, privacy, and foreclosure laws and federal and local bankruptcy rules. These statutes apply to many facets of our subsidiaries’ businesses, including loan origination, default servicing and collections, use of credit reports, safeguarding of non-public personally identifiable information about customers, foreclosure and claims handling, investment of and interest payments on escrow balances and escrow payment features and such statutes mandate certain disclosures and notices to borrowers. These requirements can and will change as statutes and regulations are enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted and enforced.

In addition, the GSEs, Ginnie Mae and other business counterparties subject our subsidiaries’ mortgage origination and servicing businesses to periodic examinations, reviews and audits, and we routinely conduct our own internal examinations, reviews and audits. These various examinations, reviews and audits of our subsidiaries’ businesses and related activities may reveal deficiencies in such subsidiaries’ compliance with our policies and other requirements to which they are subject. While we strive to investigate and remediate such deficiencies, there can be no assurance that our internal investigations will reveal any deficiencies or that any remedial measures that we implement, which could involve material expense, will ensure compliance with applicable policies, laws, regulations and other requirements or be deemed sufficient by the GSEs, Ginnie Mae, federal and local governmental authorities or other interested parties.

We and our subsidiaries devote substantial resources to regulatory compliance and regulatory inquiries, and we incur, and expect to continue to incur, significant costs in connection therewith. Our business, financial condition, liquidity and/or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected by the substantial resources we devote to, and the significant compliance costs we incur in connection with, regulatory compliance and regulatory inquiries, including any fines, penalties, restitution or similar payments we may be required to make in connection with resolving such matters.

The actual or alleged failure of our mortgage origination and servicing subsidiaries to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations and GSE, Ginnie Mae and other business counterparty requirements, or to implement and adhere to adequate remedial measures designed to address any identified compliance deficiencies, could lead to:

Any of these outcomes could materially and adversely affect our reputation, business, financial condition, prospects, liquidity and/or results of operations.

We cannot guarantee that any such scrutiny and investigations will not materially adversely affect us. Additionally, in recent years, the general trend among federal, state and local lawmakers and regulators has been toward increasing laws, regulations and investigative proceedings with regard to residential mortgage lenders and servicers. The CFPB continues to take an active role in supervising the mortgage industry, and its rule-making and regulatory agenda relating to loan servicing and origination continues to evolve. Individual states have also been increasingly active in supervising non-bank mortgage lenders and servicers such as our Mortgage Company, and certain regulators have communicated recommendations, expectations or demands with respect to areas such as corporate governance, safety and soundness, risk and compliance management, and cybersecurity, in addition to their focus on traditional licensing and examination matters.

Uncertainty exists with respect to the future of regulation of mortgage lending and servicing, including the future of the Dodd-Frank Act and CFPB. We cannot predict the specific legislative or executive actions that may result or what actions federal or state regulators might take in response to potential changes to the Dodd-Frank Act or to the federal regulatory environment generally. Such actions could impact the mortgage industry generally or us specifically, could impact our relationships with other regulators and could adversely impact our business.

The CFPB and certain state regulators have increasingly focused on the use, and adequacy, of technology in the mortgage servicing industry. For example, in 2016, the CFPB issued a special edition supervision report that stressed the need for mortgage servicers to assess and make necessary improvements to their information technology systems in order to ensure compliance with the CFPB’s mortgage servicing requirements. The New York Department of Financial Services (“NY DFS”) also issued Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies, effective in 2017, which requires banks, insurance companies and other financial services institutions regulated by the NY DFS to establish and maintain a cybersecurity program designed to protect consumers and ensure the safety and soundness of New York State’s financial services industry. In addition, the CCPA, effective in 2020, requires businesses that maintain personal information of California residents, including certain mortgage lenders and servicers, to notify certain consumers when collecting their data, respond to consumer requests relating to the uses of their data, verify the identities of consumers who make requests, disclose details regarding transactions involving their data, and maintain records of consumers’ requests relating to their data, among various other obligations and to create procedures designed to comply with CCPA requirements. The impact of the CCPA, its implementing regulations, and similar legislation enacted in other states, on our mortgage origination and servicing businesses remains uncertain, and may result in an increase in legal and compliance costs.

New regulatory and legislative measures, or changes in enforcement practices, including those related to the technology we use, could, either individually or in the aggregate, require significant changes to our business practices, impose additional costs on us, limit our product offerings, limit our ability to efficiently pursue business opportunities, negatively impact asset values or reduce our revenues. Accordingly, any of the foregoing could materially and adversely affect our business and our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Subsidiaries of Rithm Capital, NRM, Newrez and Genesis, have obtained applicable qualifications, licenses and approvals to own Non-Agency and certain Agency MSRs in the U.S. and certain other jurisdictions. As a result of NRM, Newrez and Genesis’s current and expected approvals, NRM, Newrez and Genesis are subject to extensive and comprehensive regulation under federal, state and local laws in the U.S. These laws and regulations do, and may in the future, significantly affect the way that NRM, Newrez and Genesis do business, and subject NRM, Newrez, Genesis and Rithm Capital to additional costs and regulatory obligations, which could impact our financial results.

NRM, Newrez and Genesis’s business may become subject to increasing regulatory oversight and scrutiny in the future, which may lead to regulatory investigations or enforcement actions, including both formal and informal inquiries, from various state and federal agencies as part of those agencies’ supervision of mortgage servicing and origination business activities. An adverse result in governmental investigations or examinations or private lawsuits, including purported class action lawsuits, may adversely affect NRM, Newrez, Genesis and our financial results or result in serious reputational harm. In addition, a number of participants in the mortgage servicing industry have been the subject of purported class action lawsuits and regulatory actions by state or federal regulators and other industry participants have been the subject of actions by state Attorneys General.

State and federal laws require a business to hold certain state licenses prior to acquiring MSRs. NRM and Newrez are currently licensed or otherwise eligible to hold MSRs in each applicable state. As a licensee in such states, NRM and Newrez may become subject to administrative actions in those states for failing to satisfy ongoing license requirements or for other state law violations, the consequences of which could include fines or suspensions or revocations of NRM and Newrez licenses by applicable state regulatory authorities, which could in turn result in NRM and Newrez becoming ineligible to hold MSRs in the related jurisdictions. We could be delayed or prohibited from conducting certain business activities if we do not maintain necessary licenses in certain jurisdictions. We cannot assure you that we will be able to maintain all of the required state licenses.

Additionally, NRM and Newrez have received approval from FHA to hold MSRs associated with FHA-insured mortgage loans, from Fannie Mae to hold MSRs associated with loans owned by Fannie Mae, and from Freddie Mac to hold MSRs associated with loans owned by Freddie Mac. As approved Fannie Mae Servicers, Freddie Mac Servicers and FHA Lenders, NRM and Newrez are required to conduct aspects of their respective operations in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines published by FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to maintain those approvals. Should NRM or Newrez fail to maintain FHA, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac approval, NRM or Newrez may be unable to purchase or hold MSRs associated with FHA-insured, Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac loans, which could limit our potential business activities.

In addition, Newrez is an approved issuer of mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Ginnie Mae and services the mortgage loans related to such securities (“Ginnie Mae Issuer”). As an approved Ginnie Mae Issuer, Newrez is required to conduct aspects of their operations in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines published by Ginnie Mae in order to maintain their approvals. Should Newrez fail to maintain Ginnie Mae approval, we may be unable to purchase or hold MSRs associated with Ginnie Mae loans, which could limit our potential business activities.

NRM and Newrez are currently subject to various, and may become subject to additional information, reporting and other regulatory requirements, and there is no assurance that we will be able to satisfy those requirements or other ongoing requirements applicable to mortgage loan servicers under applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Any failure by NRM or Newrez to comply with such state or federal regulatory requirements may expose us to administrative or enforcement actions, license or approval suspensions or revocations or other penalties that may restrict our business and investment options, any of which could adversely impact our business and financial results and damage our reputation.

The U.S. government has enacted legislation that enables government agencies to modify the terms of a significant number of residential and other loans to provide relief to borrowers without the applicable investor’s consent. These modifications allow for outstanding principal to be deferred, interest rates to be reduced, the term of the loan to be extended or other terms to be changed in ways that can permanently eliminate the cash flow (principal and interest) associated with a portion of the loan. These modifications are currently reducing, or in the future may reduce, the value of a number of our current or future investments, including investments in mortgage-backed securities and interests in MSRs. As a result, such loan modifications are negatively affecting our business, results of operations, liquidity and financial condition. In addition, certain market participants propose reducing the amount of paperwork required by a borrower to modify a loan, which could increase the likelihood of fraudulent modifications and materially harm the U.S. mortgage market and investors that have exposure to this market. Additional legislation intended to provide relief to borrowers may be enacted and could further harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In March 2020, the GSEs and HUD announced forbearance policies for GSE loans and government-insured loans for homeowners experiencing financial hardship associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. These announcements were followed by the signing of the CARES Act in March 2020. We may be obligated to make servicing advances to fund scheduled principal, interest, tax and insurance payments during forbearances when the borrower has failed to make such payments, and potentially various other amounts that may be required to preserve the assets being serviced, which could further harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We face significant risks in our business that may subject us to private litigation and legal liability. In general, we will be exposed to litigation risk in connection with any allegations of misconduct, negligence, dishonesty or bad faith arising from our management of any fund or by actions taken in the running of our parent company or operating partnerships. We may also be subject to litigation arising from investor dissatisfaction with the performance of our funds, including certain losses due to the failure of a particular investment strategy or improper trading activity, if we violate restrictions in our funds’ organizational documents or from allegations that we improperly exercised control or influence over companies in which our funds have large investments. In addition, we are exposed to risks of litigation relating to claims that we have not properly addressed conflicts of interest.

Additionally, Sculptor and its related subsidiaries are subject to certain restrictive covenants under the terms of its credit facility, which restrict it and its subsidiaries ability to pay dividends or make certain restricted payments, make payments on, redeem, repurchase or retire subordinated debt, engage in certain transactions with affiliates, engage in substantially different lines of business and amend their organizational documents in a manner materially adverse to the lenders, in addition to the restrictions above.

These covenants could impair our ability to grow our business, take advantage of attractive business opportunities or successfully compete. A breach of any of these covenants could result in an event of default. Cross-default provisions in our debt agreements could cause an event of default under one debt agreement to trigger an event of default under our other debt agreements. Upon the occurrence of an event of default under any of our debt agreements, the lenders or holders thereof could elect to declare all outstanding debt under such agreements to be immediately due and payable.

We finance a meaningful portion of our investments with repurchase agreements and other short-term financing arrangements. Under the terms of repurchase agreements, we will sell an asset to the lending counterparty for a specified price and concurrently agree to repurchase the same asset from our counterparty at a later date for a higher specified price. During the term of the repurchase agreement—which can be as short as 30 days—the counterparty will make funds available to us and hold the asset as collateral. Our counterparties can also require us to post additional margin as collateral at any time during the term of the agreement. When the term of a repurchase agreement ends, we will be required to repurchase the asset for the specified repurchase price, with the difference between the sale and repurchase prices serving as the equivalent of paying

interest to the counterparty in return for extending financing to us. If we want to continue to finance the asset with a repurchase agreement, we ask the counterparty to extend—or “roll”—the repurchase agreement for another term.

Our counterparties are not required to roll our repurchase agreements or other financing agreements upon the expiration of their stated terms, which subjects us to a number of risks. Counterparties electing to roll our financing agreements may charge higher spread and impose more onerous terms upon us, including the requirement that we post additional margin as collateral. More significantly, if a financing agreement counterparty elects not to extend our financing, we would be required to pay the counterparty in full on the maturity date and find an alternate source of financing. Alternate sources of financing may be more expensive, contain more onerous terms or simply may not be available. If we were unable to pay the repurchase price for any asset financed with a repurchase agreement, the counterparty has the right to sell the asset being held as collateral and require us to compensate it for any shortfall between the value of our obligation to the counterparty and the amount for which the collateral was sold (which may be a significantly discounted price). Moreover, our financing agreement obligations are currently with a limited number of counterparties. If any of our counterparties elected not to roll our financing agreements, we may not be able to find a replacement counterparty in a timely manner. Finally, some of our financing agreements contain covenants and our failure to comply with such covenants could result in a loss of our investment.

We finance a meaningful portion of our servicer advance investments and servicer advance receivables with structured financing arrangements. These arrangements are commonly of a short-term nature. These arrangements are generally accomplished by having the named servicer, if the named servicer is a subsidiary of the Company, or the purchaser of such servicer advance investments (which is a subsidiary of the Company) transfer our right to repayment for certain servicer advances that we have as servicer under the relevant Servicing Guidelines or that we have acquired from one of our Servicing Partners, as applicable, to one of our wholly-owned bankruptcy remote subsidiaries (a “Depositor”). We are generally required to continue to transfer to the related Depositor all of our rights to repayment for any particular pool of servicer advances as they arise (and, if applicable, are transferred from one of our Servicing Partners) until the related financing arrangement is paid in full and is terminated. The related Depositor then transfers such rights to an “Issuer.” The Issuer then issues limited recourse notes to the financing sources backed by such rights to repayment.

The outstanding balance of servicer advance receivables securing these arrangements is not likely to be repaid on or before the maturity date of such financing arrangements. Accordingly, we rely heavily on our financing sources to extend or refinance the terms of such financing arrangements. Our financing sources are not required to extend the arrangements upon the expiration of their stated terms, which subjects us to a number of risks. Financing sources electing to extend may charge higher interest rates and impose more onerous terms upon us, including without limitation, lowering the amount of financing that can be extended against any particular pool of servicer advances.

If a financing source is unable or unwilling to extend financing, including, but not limited to, due to legal or regulatory matters applicable to us or our Servicing Partners, the related Issuer will be required to repay the outstanding balance of the financing on the related maturity date. Additionally, there may be substantial increases in the interest rates under a financing arrangement if the related notes are not repaid, extended or refinanced prior to the expected repayment date, which may be before the related maturity date. If an Issuer is unable to pay the outstanding balance of the notes, the financing sources generally have the right to foreclose on the servicer advances pledged as collateral.

Currently, certain of the notes issued under our structured servicer advance financing arrangements accrue interest at a floating rate of interest. Servicer advance receivables are non-interest-bearing assets. Accordingly, if there is an increase in prevailing interest rates and/or our financing sources increase the interest rate “margins” or “spreads,” the amount of financing that we could obtain against any particular pool of servicer advances may decrease substantially and/or we may be required to obtain interest rate hedging arrangements. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain any such interest rate hedging arrangements.

Alternate sources of financing may be more expensive, contain more onerous terms or simply may not be available. Moreover, our structured servicer advance financing arrangements are currently with a limited number of counterparties. If any of our sources are unable to or elected not to extend or refinance such arrangements, we may not be able to find a replacement counterparty in a timely manner.

Many of our servicer advance financing arrangements are provided by financial institutions with whom we have substantial relationships. Some of our servicer advance financing arrangements entail the issuance of term notes to capital markets investors with whom we have little or no relationships or the identities of which we may not be aware and, therefore, we have

no ability to control or monitor the identity of the holders of such term notes. Holders of such term notes may have or may take positions – for example, “short” positions in our stock or the stock of our servicers – that could be benefited by adverse events with respect to us or our Servicing Partners. If any holders of term notes allege or assert noncompliance by us or the related Servicing Partner under our servicer advance financing arrangements in order to realize such benefits, we or our Servicing Partners, or our ability to maintain servicer advance financing on favorable terms, could be materially and adversely affected.

The ability to finance investments with securitizations or other long-term non-recourse financing not subject to margin requirements has been challenging as a result of market conditions. These conditions may result in having to use less efficient forms of financing for any new investments, or the refinancing of current investments, which will likely require a larger portion of our cash flows to be put toward making the investment and thereby reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders and funds available for operations and investments and which will also likely require us to assume higher levels of risk when financing our investments. In addition, there is a limited market for financing of interests in MSRs, and it is possible that one will not develop for a variety of reasons, such as the challenges with perfecting security interests in the underlying collateral.

Certain of our advance facilities may mature in the short term and there can be no assurance that we will be able to renew these facilities on favorable terms or at all. Moreover, an increase in delinquencies with respect to the loans underlying our servicer advance receivables could result in the need for additional financing, which may not be available to us on favorable terms or at all. If we are not able to obtain adequate financing to purchase servicer advance receivables from our Servicing Partners or fund servicer advances under our MSRs in accordance with the applicable Servicing Guidelines, we or any such Servicing Partner, as applicable, could default on its obligation to fund such advances, which could result in its termination of us or any applicable Servicing Partner, as servicer under the applicable Servicing Guidelines, and a partial or total loss of our interests in MSRs and servicer advances, as applicable.

We use structured finance and other non-recourse long-term financing for our investments to the extent available and appropriate. In such structures, our financing sources typically have only a claim against the assets included in the securitizations rather than a general claim against us as an entity. Prior to any such financing, we would seek to finance our investments with relatively short-term facilities until a sufficient portfolio is accumulated. As a result, we would be subject to the risk that we would not be able to acquire, during the period that any short-term facilities are available, sufficient eligible assets or securities to maximize the efficiency of a securitization. We also bear the risk that we would not be able to obtain new short-term facilities or would not be able to renew any short-term facilities after they expire should we need more time to seek and acquire sufficient eligible assets or securities for a securitization. In addition, conditions in the capital markets may make the issuance of any such securitization less attractive to us even when we do have sufficient eligible assets or securities. While we would generally intend to retain a portion of the interests issued under such securitizations and, therefore, still have exposure to any investments included in such securitizations, our inability to enter into such securitizations may increase our overall exposure to risks associated with direct ownership of such investments, including the risk of default. Our inability to refinance any short-term facilities would also increase our risk because borrowings thereunder would likely be recourse to us as an entity. If we are unable to obtain and renew short-term facilities or to consummate securitizations to finance our investments on a long-term basis, we may be required to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at an inopportune time or price.

Certain of our financing facilities are rated by one rating agency and we may sponsor financing facilities in the future that are rated by credit agencies. The related agency or rating agencies may suspend rating notes backed by servicer advances, MSRs, Excess MSRs and our other investments at any time. Rating agency delays may result in our inability to obtain timely ratings on new notes or to amend or modify other financing facilities which could adversely impact the availability of borrowings or the interest rates, advance rates or other financing terms and adversely affect our results of operations and liquidity. Further, if we are unable to secure ratings from other agencies, limited investor demand for unrated notes could result in further adverse changes to our liquidity and profitability.

A downgrade of certain of the notes issued under our financing facilities could cause such notes to become due and payable prior to their expected repayment date/maturity date, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Our financing facilities, including our CLOs, require us to make certain representations and warranties regarding the assets that collateralize the borrowings. Although we perform due diligence on the assets that we acquire, certain representations and warranties that we make in respect of such assets may ultimately be determined to be inaccurate. In addition, our loan sale agreements require us to make representations and warranties to the purchaser regarding the loans that were sold. Such representations and warranties may include, but are not limited to, issues such as the validity of the lien; the absence of delinquent taxes or other liens; the loans’ compliance with all local, state and federal laws and the delivery of all documents required to perfect title to the lien.

In the event of a breach of a representation or warranty, we may be required to repurchase affected loans, make indemnification payments to certain indemnified parties or address any claims associated with such breach. Further, we may have limited or no recourse against the seller from whom we purchased the loans. Such recourse may be limited due to a variety of factors, including the absence of a representation or warranty from the seller corresponding to the representation provided by us, the contractual expiration thereof, or seller’s bankruptcy, liquidation, or termination of its affairs. A breach of a representation or warranty could adversely affect our results of operations and liquidity.

Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Internal Revenue 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 will depend on our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. Compliance with these requirements must be carefully monitored on a continuing basis. Monitoring and managing our REIT compliance has become challenging due to the increased size and complexity of the assets in our portfolio, a meaningful portion of which are not qualifying REIT assets. There can be no assurance that our personnel responsible for doing so will be able to successfully monitor our compliance or maintain our REIT status.

We intend to operate in a manner intended to qualify us as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends upon our analysis of the fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we do not obtain independent appraisals. See “—Risks Related to our Business—The valuations of our assets are subject to uncertainty because most of our assets are not traded in an active market,” and “—Risks Related to the Financial Markets and Our Regulatory Environment—Rapid changes in the values of our assets may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or our exclusion from the 1940 Act.” Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to successfully manage the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Moreover, the proper classification of one or more of our investments (such as TBAs) may be uncertain in some circumstances, which could affect the application of the REIT qualification requirements. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) will not contend that our investments violate the REIT requirements.

If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, including a prior taxable year for which the statute of limitations remains open, we would be subject to U.S. federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates and distributions to stockholders would not be deductible by us in computing our taxable income. Any such corporate tax liability could be substantial and would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders, which in turn could have an adverse impact on the value of, and market price for, our stock. See also “—Our failure to qualify as a REIT would cause our stock to be delisted from the NYSE.”

Unless entitled to relief under certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, we also would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we initially ceased to qualify as a REIT.

The NYSE requires, as a condition to the listing of our shares, that we maintain our REIT status. Consequently, if we fail to maintain our REIT status, our shares would promptly be delisted from the NYSE, which would decrease the trading activity of such shares. This could make it difficult to sell shares and would likely cause the market volume of the shares trading to decline.

If we were delisted as a result of losing our REIT status and desired to relist our shares on the NYSE, we would have to reapply to the NYSE to be listed as a domestic corporation. As the NYSE’s listing standards for REITs are less onerous than its standards for domestic corporations, it would be more difficult for us to become a listed company under these heightened standards. We might not be able to satisfy the NYSE’s listing standards for a domestic corporation. As a result, if we were delisted from the NYSE, we might not be able to relist as a domestic corporation, in which case our shares could not trade on the NYSE.

We enter into financing arrangements that are structured as sale and repurchase agreements pursuant to which we 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 that are secured by the assets sold pursuant thereto. We believe that, for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests, we should be treated as the owner of the assets that are the subject of any such sale and repurchase agreement, notwithstanding that those agreements generally 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 might fail to qualify as a REIT.

We have received from the IRS a private letter ruling substantially to the effect that our Excess MSRs represent interests in mortgages on real property and thus are qualifying “real estate assets” for purposes of the REIT asset test, which generate income that qualifies as interest on obligations secured by mortgages on real property for purposes of the REIT income test. The ruling is based on, among other things, certain assumptions as well as on the accuracy of certain factual representations and statements that we have made to the IRS. If any of the representations or statements that we have made in connection with the private letter ruling, are, or become, inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect with respect to one or more Excess MSR investments, or if we acquire an Excess MSR investment with terms that are not consistent with the terms of the Excess MSR investments described in the private letter ruling, then we will not be able to rely on the private letter ruling. If we are unable to rely on the private letter ruling with respect to an Excess MSR investment, the IRS could assert that such Excess MSR investments do not qualify under the REIT asset and income tests, and if successful, we might fail to qualify as a REIT.

Dividends payable to domestic stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates are generally taxed at reduced tax rates applicable to “qualified dividends.” Dividends payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for those reduced rates. The more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our common stock. In addition, the relative attractiveness of real estate in general may be adversely affected by the favorable tax treatment given to non-REIT corporate dividends, which could affect the value of our real estate assets negatively.

We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding any net capital gain, in order for corporate income tax not to apply to earnings that we distribute. We intend to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the REIT requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. However, differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash could require us to sell assets or borrow funds on a short-term or long-term basis to meet the 90% distribution requirement of the Internal Revenue Code. Certain of our assets, such as our investment in consumer loans, generate substantial mismatches between taxable income and available cash. As a result, the requirement to distribute a substantial portion of our net 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 taxable distributions of our capital stock or debt securities in order to comply with REIT requirements. Further, amounts distributed will not be available to fund investment activities. If we fail to obtain debt or equity capital in the future, it could limit our ability to satisfy our liquidity needs, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

Based on IRS guidance concerning the classification of Excess MSRs, we intend to treat our Excess MSRs as ownership interests in the interest payments made on the underlying residential mortgage loans, akin to an “interest only” strip. Under this treatment, for purposes of determining the amount and timing of taxable income, each Excess MSR is treated as a bond that was issued with original issue discount on the date we acquired such Excess MSR. In general, we will be required to accrue original issue discount based on the constant yield to maturity of each Excess MSR and to treat such original issue discount as taxable income in accordance with the applicable U.S. federal income tax rules. The constant yield of an Excess MSR will be determined, and we will be taxed, based on a prepayment assumption regarding future payments due on the residential mortgage loans underlying the Excess MSR. If the residential mortgage loans underlying an Excess MSR prepay at a rate different than that under the prepayment assumption, our recognition of original issue discount will be either increased or decreased depending on the circumstances. Thus, in a particular taxable year, we may be required to accrue an amount of income in respect of an Excess MSR that exceeds the amount of cash collected in respect of that Excess MSR. Furthermore, it is possible that, over the life of the investment in an Excess MSR, the total amount we pay for, and accrue with respect to, the Excess MSR may exceed the total amount we collect on such Excess MSR. No assurance can be given that we will be entitled to a deduction for such excess, meaning that we may be required to recognize “phantom income” over the life of an Excess MSR.

Other debt instruments that we may acquire, including consumer loans, may be issued with, or treated as issued with, original issue discount. Those instruments would be subject to the original issue discount accrual and income computations that are described above with regard to Excess MSRs.

Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in 2017, we generally are required to take certain amounts into income no later than the time such amounts are reflected on certain financial statements. The application of this rule may require the accrual of, among other categories of income, income with respect to certain debt instruments or mortgage-backed securities, such as original issue discount, earlier than would be the case under the general tax rules, although the precise application of this rule is unclear at this time.

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. Accrued market discount is reported as income when, and to the extent that, any payment of principal of the debt instrument is made. If we collect less on the debt instrument 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 debt instruments that are subsequently modified by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding instrument are “significant modifications” under the applicable U.S. Treasury regulations, the modified instrument will be considered to have been reissued to us 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 instrument exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified instrument, even if the value of the instrument or the payment expectations have not changed. Following such a taxable modification, we would hold the modified loan with a cost basis equal to its principal amount for U.S. federal tax purposes.

Finally, in the event that any debt instruments acquired by us are delinquent as to mandatory principal and interest payments, or in the event payments with respect to a particular 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 debt instruments at the 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 of an appropriate character in that later year or thereafter.

In any event, if our investments generate more taxable income than cash in any given year, we may have difficulty satisfying our annual REIT distribution requirement.

As a REIT, we are generally required to distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and not including net capital gains) each year to our stockholders. To qualify for the tax benefits accorded to REITs, we intend to make distributions to our stockholders in amounts such that we distribute all or substantially all of our net taxable income, subject to certain adjustments, although there can be no assurance that our operations will generate sufficient cash to make such distributions. Moreover, our ability to make distributions may be adversely affected by the risk factors described herein. See also “—Risks Related to our Stock—We have not established a minimum distribution payment level for our common stock, and we cannot assure you of our ability to pay distributions in the future.”

In order for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT under the Internal Revenue 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 Internal Revenue Code to include certain entities) at any time during the last half of each taxable year after our first taxable year. Our certificate of incorporation, with certain exceptions, authorizes our board of directors to take the actions that are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Stockholders are generally restricted from owning more than 9.8% by value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of our outstanding shares of common stock, or 9.8% by value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of our outstanding shares of capital stock. Our board of directors may grant an exemption in its sole discretion, subject to such conditions, representations and undertakings as it may determine in its sole discretion. These ownership limits could 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.

Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, tax on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, and state or local income, property and transfer taxes. Moreover, if a REIT distributes less than 85% of its ordinary income and 95% of its capital gain net income plus any undistributed shortfall from the prior year (the “Required Distribution”) to its stockholders during any calendar year (including any distributions declared by the last day of the calendar year but paid in the subsequent year), then it is required to pay an excise tax on 4% of any shortfall between the Required Distribution and the amount that was actually distributed. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our stockholders. In addition, in order to meet the REIT qualification requirements, or to avert the imposition of a 100% tax that applies to certain gains derived by a REIT from dealer property or inventory, we may hold some of our assets through TRSs. Such subsidiaries generally will be subject to corporate level income tax at regular rates and the payment of such taxes would reduce our return on the applicable investment. Currently, we hold significant portions of our investments and activities through TRSs, including servicer advance investments, MSRs, origination and servicing activities and our asset management business, and we may contribute other non-qualifying investments, such as our investment in consumer loans, to a TRS in the future.

To qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. As a result of these tests, we may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution, forgo otherwise attractive investment opportunities, liquidate assets in adverse market conditions or contribute assets to a TRS that is subject to regular corporate federal income tax. Our ability to acquire and hold MSRs, interests in consumer loans, servicer advance investments and other investments is subject to the applicable REIT qualification tests, and we may have to hold these interests through TRSs, which would negatively impact our returns from these assets. In general, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to make and retain certain attractive investments.

The existing REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code may substantially limit our ability to hedge our operations because a significant amount of the income from those hedging transactions is likely to be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both REIT gross income tests. In addition, we must limit our aggregate income from non-qualified hedging transactions, from our provision of services and from other non-qualifying sources, to less than 5% of our annual gross income (determined without regard to gross income from qualified hedging transactions).

As a result, we may have to limit our use of certain hedging techniques or implement those hedges through TRSs. This could result in greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to incur or could increase the cost of our hedging activities. If we fail to comply with these limitations, we could lose our REIT qualification for U.S. federal income tax purposes, unless our failure was due to reasonable cause, and not due to willful neglect, and we meet certain other technical requirements. Even if our failure were due to reasonable cause, we might incur a penalty tax. See also “—Risks Related to Our Business—Any hedging transactions that we enter into may limit our gains or result in losses.”

Neither ordinary nor capital gain distributions with respect to our stock nor gain from the sale of stock should generally constitute unrelated business taxable income to a tax-exempt investor. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule. In particular:

We may enter into securitization or other financing transactions that result in the creation of taxable mortgage pools for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a REIT, so long as we own 100% of the equity interests in a taxable mortgage pool, we would generally not be adversely affected by the characterization of a securitization as a taxable mortgage pool. Certain categories of stockholders, however, such as foreign stockholders eligible for treaty or other benefits, stockholders with net operating losses, and certain tax exempt stockholders that are subject to unrelated business income tax, could be subject to increased taxes on a portion of their dividend income from us that is attributable to the taxable mortgage pool. In addition, to the extent that our stock is owned by tax exempt “disqualified organizations,” such as certain government-related entities and charitable remainder trusts that are not subject to tax on unrelated business income, we could incur a corporate level tax on a portion of our income from the taxable mortgage pool. In that case, we might reduce the amount of our distributions to any disqualified organization whose stock ownership gave rise to the tax. Moreover, we may be precluded from selling equity interests in these securitizations to outside investors, or selling any debt securities issued in connection with these securitizations that might be considered to be equity interests for tax purposes. These limitations may prevent us from using certain techniques to maximize our returns from securitization transactions.

We purchase and sell Agency RMBS through TBAs and recognize income or gains from the disposition of those TBAs, through dollar roll transactions or otherwise. In a dollar roll transaction, we exchange an existing TBA for another TBA with a different settlement date. There is no direct authority with respect to the qualification of TBAs as real estate assets or U.S. Government securities for purposes of the 75% asset test or the qualification of income or gains from dispositions of TBAs as gains from the sale of real property (including interests in real property and interests in mortgages on real property) or other qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test. For a particular taxable year, we would treat such TBAs as

qualifying assets for purposes of the REIT asset tests, and income and gains from such TBAs as qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, to the extent set forth in an opinion from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP substantially to the effect that (i) for purposes of the REIT asset tests, our ownership of a TBA should be treated as ownership of the underlying Agency RMBS, and (ii) for purposes of the 75% REIT gross income test, any gain recognized by us in connection with the settlement of such TBAs should be treated as gain from the sale or disposition of the underlying Agency RMBS. Opinions of counsel are not binding on the IRS and no assurance can be given that the IRS would not successfully challenge the conclusions set forth in such opinions. In addition, it must be emphasized that any opinion of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP would be based on various assumptions relating to any TBAs that we enter into and would be conditioned upon fact-based representations and covenants made by our management regarding such TBAs. No assurance can be given that the IRS would not assert that such assets or income are not qualifying assets or income. If the IRS were to successfully challenge any conclusions of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, we could be subject to a penalty tax or we could fail to qualify as a REIT if a sufficient portion of our assets consists of TBAs or a sufficient portion of our income consists of income or gains from the disposition of TBAs.

Net income that we derive from a “prohibited transaction” is subject to a 100% tax. The term “prohibited transaction” generally includes a sale or other disposition of property (including mortgage loans, but other than foreclosure property, as discussed below) that is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of our trade or business. We might be subject to this tax if we were to dispose of or securitize loans or Excess MSRs in a manner that was treated as a prohibited transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

We intend to conduct our operations so that no asset that we own (or are treated as owning) will be treated as, or as having been, held-for-sale to customers, and that a sale of any such asset will not be treated as having been in the ordinary course of our business. As a result, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of loans or Excess MSRs 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. In addition, whether property is held “primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business” depends on the particular facts and circumstances. No assurance can be given that any property that we sell will not be treated as property held-for-sale to customers, or that we can comply with certain safe-harbor provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that would prevent such treatment. The 100% prohibited transaction tax does not apply to gains from the sale of property that is held through a TRS or other taxable corporation, although such income will be subject to tax in the hands of the corporation at regular corporate rates. We intend to structure our activities to prevent prohibited transaction characterization.

To qualify as a REIT, we must comply with requirements regarding the composition of 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 present U.S. federal income tax laws or the tax laws of other jurisdictions may be modified, possibly with retroactive effect, by legislative, judicial or administrative action at any time, which could affect the tax treatment of us or of an investment in our shares. For example, the U.S. federal income tax rules, including those dealing with REITs, are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process, the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department, which results in statutory changes as well as frequent revisions to regulations and interpretations. In addition, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) has developed a framework to establish certain international standards for taxing the worldwide income of multinational companies, including, among other things, provisions that would ensure all companies pay a global minimum tax. Legislatures in certain countries have adopted legislation consistent with the OECD’s proposals, and other legislatures may do the same in the future. We cannot predict the impact, if any, of these proposed changes to our business or an investment in our stock.

In the course of the due diligence review of each of Sculptor and Computershare that we conducted prior to the execution of the respective transaction documents for the Sculptor Acquisition and Computershare Acquisition we may not have discovered, or may have been unable to quantify, undisclosed liabilities or other issues of Sculptor and its subsidiaries or Computershare and its subsidiaries, and we do not have rights of indemnification against Sculptor or Computershare for any such liabilities. Examples of such undisclosed liabilities or other issues may include, but are not limited to, unpaid taxes, pending or threatened litigation or regulatory matters. Any such undisclosed liabilities could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows following the completion of the Sculptor Acquisition or the Computershare Acquisition.

As a result of the Section 382 limitation and potentially other limitations or changes in circumstances, our use of Sculptor’s tax attributes will be significantly delayed, and we may not be able to use all of those attributes, thereby limiting the cash tax benefit of those attributes.

Following the Sculptor Acquisition and the Computershare Acquisition, the scope of operations of our business will increase beyond the scope of operations of our business prior to such acquisitions. In addition, we may continue to expand our size and operations through additional acquisitions or other strategic transactions. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to manage our expanded business, which may pose substantial challenges for management, including challenges related to the management and monitoring of new operations and associated increased costs and complexity. There can be no assurances that we will be successful or that we will realize the expected synergies and other benefits currently anticipated from the Sculptor Acquisition or the Computershare Acquisition or anticipated from any additional acquisitions or strategic transactions that we may undertake in the future.

Our common stock began trading on the NYSE in May 2013, and our preferred stock began trading on the NYSE in July 2019. There can be no assurance that an active trading market for our common and preferred stock will be sustained in the future, and the market price of our common and preferred stock may fluctuate widely, depending upon many factors, some of which may be beyond our control. These factors include, without limitation:

Stock markets in general have experienced volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of a particular company. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common and preferred stock.

Sales or issuances of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock, or the perception that such sales or issuances might occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. The issuance of our common stock in connection with property, portfolio or business acquisitions or the exercise of outstanding options or otherwise could also have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock. We have an effective registration statement on file to sell common stock or convertible securities in public offerings.

Your percentage ownership in us may be diluted in the future because of equity awards that we expect will be granted to our directors, officers and employees who perform services for us, and to our directors, officers and employees, as well as other equity instruments such as debt and equity financing. We have adopted the Rithm Capital Corp. 2023 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2023 Plan”), which provides for the grant of stock-based compensation to its officers and other employees and non-employee directors for the purpose of providing incentives and rewards for service or performance. Stock-based awards issued under the 2023 Plan include time-based and performance-based restricted stock unit awards and restricted stock awards and may include other forms of equity-based compensation. We reserved 34,240,000 shares of our common stock for issuance under the 2023 Plan. The 2023 Plan expires in 2033.

We may in the future incur or issue debt or issue equity or equity-related securities. In the event of our liquidation, lenders and holders of our debt and holders of our preferred stock (if any) would receive a distribution of our available assets before common stockholders. Any future incurrence or issuance of debt would increase our interest cost and could adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows. We are not required to offer any additional equity securities to existing common stockholders on a preemptive basis. Therefore, additional issuances of common stock, directly or through convertible or exchangeable securities, warrants or options, will dilute the holdings of our existing common stockholders and such issuances, or the perception of such issuances, may reduce the market price of our common stock. Our preferred stock has, and any additional preferred stock issued by us would likely have, a preference on distribution payments, periodically or upon liquidation, which could eliminate or otherwise limit our ability to make distributions to common stockholders. Because our decision to incur or issue debt or issue equity or equity-related securities in the future will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing, nature or success of our future capital raising efforts. Thus, common stockholders bear the risk that our future incurrence or issuance of debt or issuance of equity or equity-related securities will adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

We intend to make quarterly distributions of our REIT taxable income to holders of our common stock out of assets legally available therefor. We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and our ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors described in this report. Any distributions will be authorized by our board of directors and declared by us based upon a number of factors, including our actual and anticipated results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, restrictions under Delaware law or applicable financing covenants, our REIT taxable income, the annual distribution requirements under the REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, our operating expenses and other factors our directors deem relevant.

Although we have other sources of liquidity, such as sales of and repayments from our investments, potential debt financing sources and the issuance of equity securities, there can be no assurance that we will generate sufficient cash or achieve investment results that will allow us to make a specified level of cash distributions or year-to-year increases in cash distributions in the future.

Furthermore, while we are required to make distributions in order to maintain our REIT status (as described above under “—Risks Related to our Taxation as a REIT—We may be unable to generate sufficient cash from operations to pay our operating expenses and to pay distributions to our stockholders”), we may elect not to maintain our REIT status, in which case we would no longer be required to make such distributions. Moreover, even if we do elect to maintain our REIT status, we may elect to comply with the applicable requirements by, after completing various procedural steps, distributing, under certain circumstances, a portion of the required amount in the form of shares of our common stock in lieu of cash. If we elect not to maintain our REIT status or to satisfy any required distributions in shares of common stock in lieu of cash, such action could negatively and materially affect our business, results of operations, liquidity and financial condition as well as the market price of our common stock. No assurance can be given that we will make any distributions on shares of our common stock in the future.

We may in the future make taxable distributions that are payable in cash and shares of our common stock at the election of each stockholder. 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 federal income tax purposes. As a result, stockholders may be required to pay income taxes with respect to such distributions in excess of the cash distributions received. If a U.S. stockholder sells the stock that it receives as a distribution in order to pay this tax, the sale proceeds may be less than the amount included in income with respect to the distribution, depending on the market price of our stock at the time of the sale. Furthermore, with respect to certain non-U.S. stockholders, we may be required to withhold U.S. tax with respect to such distributions, including in respect of all or a portion of such distribution that is payable in stock. In addition, if a significant number of our stockholders determine to sell shares of our common stock in order to pay taxes owed on distributions, it may put downward pressure on the market price of our common stock.

The IRS has issued guidance authorizing elective cash/stock dividends to be made by public REITs where a cap of at least 20% is placed on the amount of cash that may be paid as part of the dividend, provided that certain requirements are met. It is

unclear whether and to what extent we would be able to or choose to pay taxable distributions in cash and stock. In addition, no assurance can be given that the IRS will not impose additional requirements in the future with respect to taxable cash/stock distributions, including on a retroactive basis, or assert that the requirements for such taxable cash/stock distributions have not been met.

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell shares of our common stock is our distribution rate as a percentage of our stock price relative to market interest rates. If the market price of our common stock is based primarily on the earnings and return that we derive from our investments and income with respect to our investments and our related distributions to stockholders, and not from the market value of the investments themselves, then interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions will likely affect the market price of our common stock. For instance, if market interest rates rise without an increase in our distribution rate, the market price of our common stock could decrease, as potential investors may require a higher distribution yield on our common stock or seek other securities paying higher distributions or interest. In addition, rising interest rates would result in increased interest expense on our outstanding variable rate and future variable and fixed-rate debt, thereby adversely affecting cash flow and our ability to service our indebtedness and pay distributions.

Our certificate of incorporation, bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions that are intended to deter coercive takeover practices and inadequate takeover bids by making such practices or bids unacceptably expensive to the raider and to encourage prospective acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors rather than to attempt a hostile takeover. These provisions include, among others:

Public stockholders who might desire to participate in these types of transactions may not have an opportunity to do so, even if the transaction is considered favorable to stockholders. These anti-takeover provisions could substantially impede the ability of public stockholders to benefit from a change in control or a change in our management and board of directors and, as a result, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and your ability to realize any potential change of control premium.

The returns on our shares of common stock are not directly linked to the historical or future performance of the funds we manage or the manager of those funds. Even if our funds experience positive performance and our AUM increase, holders of our common stock may not experience a corresponding positive return on their common stock.

However, poor performance of the funds we manage will cause a decline in our revenues from such funds and may therefore have a negative effect on our performance and the returns on our common stock. If we fail to meet the expectations of our fund

investors or otherwise experience poor investment performance, whether due to difficult economic and financial conditions or otherwise, our ability to retain existing AUM and attract new investors and capital flows could be materially adversely affected. In turn, the management fees and incentive income that we would earn would be reduced and our business, financial condition or results of operations would suffer, thus potentially negatively impacting the price of our common stock. Furthermore, even if the investment performance of our funds is positive, our business, financial condition or results of operations and the price of our common stock could be materially adversely affected if we are unable to attract and retain additional AUM consistent with industry trends or investor and market expectations.

A plan fiduciary considering an investment in our common stock should consider, among other things, whether such an investment is consistent with the fiduciary obligations under the ERISA, as amended, including whether such investment might constitute or give rise to a prohibited transaction under ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code or any substantially similar federal, state or local law and, if so, whether an exemption from such prohibited transaction rules is available.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy, the global financial markets and the global political conditions. Such conditions could include political unrest, war, such as the war in Ukraine or the ongoing war and tensions in the Middle East, natural disasters or global pandemics. The U.S. and global economies are facing higher inflation and interest rates and potential recession. A weak or declining economy or political disruption, including any international trade disputes, could exacerbate supply chain constraints that could ultimately harm our business.

As our reliance on rapidly changing technology has increased, so have the risks that threaten the confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information systems, both internal and those provided to us by third-party service providers (including, but not limited to, our Servicing Partners). Cybersecurity incidents may involve gaining authorized or unauthorized access to our information systems for purposes of theft of certain personally identifiable or other information of consumers or fund investors, misappropriating assets, stealing confidential information, corrupting data or causing operational disruption. Disruptions and failures of our systems or those of our third-party vendors could result from these incidents or be caused by fire, power outages, natural disasters and other similar events and may interrupt or delay our ability to provide services to our customers, expose us to remedial costs and reputational damage, and otherwise adversely affect our operations.

In addition, we are subject to various privacy and data protection laws and regulations, and any changes to laws or regulations, including new restrictions or requirements applicable to our business, could impose additional costs and liability on us and could limit our use and disclosure of such information. For example, the New York State Department of Financial Services requires certain financial services companies, such as NRM and Newrez, to establish a detailed cybersecurity program and comply with other requirements, and the CCPA created new compliance regulations on businesses that collect information from California residents. Non-compliance by us, or potentially by third parties with which we share information, with any applicable privacy and cybersecurity law or regulation, including accidental loss, inadvertent disclosure, unauthorized access or dissemination or breach of security, may result in damage to our reputation and could subject us to fines, penalties, required corrective actions, lawsuits, payment of damages or restrictions on our use or transfer of data.

Any of the foregoing events could result in violations of applicable privacy and other laws, financial loss to us or to our customers, loss of confidence in our security measures, customer dissatisfaction, additional regulatory scrutiny, significant litigation exposure and harm to our reputation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial

condition, liquidity and results of operations. In addition, insurance and other safeguards might only partially reimburse us for losses, if at all.

We have a number of counterparties and vendors, who provide us with financial, technology and other services that support our businesses. If our current counterparties and vendors were to stop providing services to us on acceptable terms, we may be unable to procure alternative services from other counterparties or vendors in a timely and efficient manner and on similarly acceptable terms, or at all. With respect to vendors engaged to perform certain servicing activities, we are required to assess their compliance with various regulations and establish procedures to provide reasonable assurance that the vendor’s activities comply in all material respects with such regulations. In the event that a vendor’s activities are not in compliance, it could negatively impact our relationships with our regulators, as well as our business and operations. Accordingly, we may incur significant costs to resolve any such disruptions in service which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

As part of our business strategy, we regularly evaluate acquisitions of what we believe are complementary assets. Identifying and achieving the anticipated benefits of such acquisitions is subject to a number of uncertainties, including, without limitation, whether we are able to acquire the assets, within our parameters, integrate the acquired assets and manage the assumed liabilities efficiently. It is possible that the integration process could take longer than anticipated and could result in additional and unforeseen expenses, the disruption of our ongoing business, processes and systems, or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures, practices and policies, any of which could adversely affect our ability to achieve the anticipated benefits of such acquisitions. There may be increased risk due to integrating the assets into our financial reporting and internal control systems. Difficulties in adding the assets into our business could also result in the loss of contract counterparties or other persons with whom we conduct business and potential disputes or litigation with contract counterparties or other persons with whom we or such counterparties conduct business. We could also be adversely affected by any issues attributable to the related seller’s operations that arise or are based on events or actions that occurred prior to the closing of such acquisitions. Completion of the integration process is subject to a number of uncertainties, and no assurance can be given that the anticipated benefits will be realized in their entirety or at all or, if realized, the timing of their realization. Failure to achieve these anticipated benefits could result in increased costs or decreases in the amount of expected revenues and could adversely affect our future business, financial condition, operating results and cash flows. Due to the costs of engaging in a number of acquisitions, we may also have difficulty completing more acquisitions in the future.

We are subject to significant competition in seeking investments. We compete with other companies, including other REITs, insurance companies and other investors, including funds and companies affiliated with FIG LLC (our “Former Manager”). Some of our competitors have greater resources than we possess or have greater access to capital or various types of financing structures than are available to us and we may not be able to compete successfully for investments or provide attractive investment returns relative to our competitors. These competitors may be willing to accept lower returns on their investments and, as a result, our profit margins could be adversely affected. Furthermore, competition for investments that are suitable for us, including, but not limited to, interests in MSRs, may lead to decreased availability, higher market prices and decreased returns available from such investments, which may further limit our ability to generate our desired returns. We cannot assure you that other companies will not be formed that compete with us for investments or otherwise pursue investment strategies similar to ours or that we will be able to compete successfully against any such companies.

Our future success will depend on our ability to identify, hire, develop, motivate and retain highly qualified management and other personnel for all areas of the Company, in particular skilled managers, loan officers, underwriters, loan servicers, debt default specialists, investment professionals and other personnel specialized in finance, risk and compliance. Trained and experienced personnel are in high demand and may be in short supply in some areas. We may not be able to attract, develop and maintain an adequate skilled management and workforce necessary to operate our businesses and labor expenses may increase as a result of a shortage in the supply of qualified personnel. If we are unable to attract and retain such personnel, we may not be able to take advantage of acquisitions and other growth opportunities that may be presented to us, and this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

None.

We are or may become, from time to time, involved in various disputes, litigation and regulatory inquiry and investigation matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. Given the inherent unpredictability of these types of proceedings, it is possible that future adverse outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations.

Rithm Capital is, from time to time, subject to inquiries by government entities. Rithm Capital currently does not believe any of these inquiries would result in a material adverse effect on Rithm Capital’s business.

Not applicable.

We have one class of common stock, which is listed on the NYSE under the symbol “RITM”. As of February 9, 2024, there were 26 holders of record of our common stock. This figure does not reflect the beneficial ownership of shares held in nominee name.

The following graph compares the cumulative total return for our common stock (stock price change plus reinvested dividends) with the comparable return of four indices: NAREIT All REIT, Russell 2000, NAREIT Mortgage REIT and S&P 500. The graph assumes an investment of $100 in our common stock and in each of the indices on December 31, 2018 through December 31, 2023. The past performance of our common stock is not an indication of future performance.

See Note 22 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for further information regarding distributions on our common stock. We may declare quarterly distributions on our common stock. No assurance, however, can be given that any future distributions will be made or, if made, as to the amounts or timing of any future distributions as such distributions are subject to our earnings, financial condition, liquidity, capital requirements, REIT requirements and such other factors as our board of directors deems

relevant. In addition, such distributions may be subject to the receipt of sufficient funds from our servicer subsidiaries, NRM and Newrez, which are subject to regulatory restrictions on their ability to pay distributions.

On May 25, 2023, Rithm Capital’s stockholders adopted the 2023 Plan, which became effective as of May 25, 2023. The 2023 Plan replaced Rithm Capital’s Nonqualified Stock Option and Incentive Award Plan, which became effective on May 15, 2013, was amended and restated as of November 4, 2014 and as of February 16, 2023, and expired by its terms on April 29, 2023 (the “2013 Plan”). Any stock-based awards issued under the 2013 Plan will continue to be subject to the terms and provisions of the 2013 Plan applicable to such awards. The 2023 Plan is intended to facilitate our use of equity-based awards and incentives to provide competitive short-term and long-term compensation opportunities for the benefit of our officers, employees, non-employee directors, independent contractors and consultants to strengthen their commitment to the Company, motivate them to faithfully and diligently perform their responsibilities and attract and retain competent and dedicated persons whose contributions are essential to the success of the Company’s business and whose efforts will impact the Company’s long-term growth and profitability. To accomplish these purposes, the 2023 Plan provides for the issuance of options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock bonuses, other stock-based awards and cash awards. Such awards will be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the agreements evidencing such awards and the terms of the 2023 Plan. The maximum number of shares available for issuance in the aggregate over the ten-year term of the 2023 Plan is 34,240,000 shares.

For details regarding our share repurchase program, see Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Stockholders’ Equity—Common Stock.”

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto, and with Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors.”

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is intended to allow readers to view our business from management’s perspective by (i) providing material information relevant to an assessment of our financial condition and results of operations, including an evaluation of the amount and certainty of cash flows from operations and from outside sources, (ii) focusing the discussion on material events and uncertainties known to management that are reasonably likely to cause reported financial information not to be indicative of future operating results or future financial condition, including descriptions and amounts of matters that are reasonably likely, based on management’s assessment, to have a material impact on future operations and (iii) discussing the financial statements and other statistical data management believes will enhance the reader’s understanding of our financial condition, changes in financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

This section generally discusses 2023 and 2022 items and year-to-year comparisons between 2023 and 2022. Discussions of 2022 items and year-to-year comparisons between 2022 and 2021 that are not included in this Form 10-K can be found in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7. of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022.

Rithm Capital is a global asset manager focused on real estate, credit and financial services. We are structured as an internally managed REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Rithm Capital became a publicly-traded entity on May 15, 2013.

As of December 31, 2023, we had $35.3 billion in total assets, approximately $32.8 billion in AUM and 6,570 employees, including those individuals employed by our operating entities.

The following table summarizes the calculation of book value per common share:

Refer to Item 7A. “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” for interest rate risk and its impact on fair value.

U.S. economic data and indicators gained strength as 2023 progressed. Real gross domestic product (“GDP”) was reported at 3.3% for the year, highlighted by a notably strong reading of 4.9% in the third quarter while slowing through the fourth quarter.

U.S. and global economic growth continues to be threatened by the ongoing war and tensions in the Middle East, in addition to trade disruptions due to the war in Ukraine, and still elevated inflation rates. The Federal Reserve continued to increase rates in the first half of 2023, to combat high inflation rates.

With respect to the mortgage and housing markets, the inventory of existing homes for sale remained low while mortgage rates briefly hit two decade highs at just below 8% in November. Despite significant changes in rates through 2023, the 10-year U.S. Treasury rate remained unchanged, and the 30-year fixed mortgage rate was 20bps higher compared to year end 2022. Further, mortgage rates are expected to fall slightly in 2024 while home prices are expected to continue to rise in 2024.

The U.S. markets experienced significant instability in the banking sector during the first and second quarters of 2023. In March 2023, each of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). This caused uncertainty for businesses that used these banks and resulted in significant general market disruption. Further, it raised concerns about the overall stability of the banking system in the United States, particularly relating to the stability of regional banks. As a result of these circumstances, the Federal Reserve created the Bank Term Funding Program in March 2023, under which eligible institutions could receive additional funding via loans, to help stabilize the banking sector and avoid a broader destabilization in the financial system and potentially a recession. In May 2023, First Republic Bank was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation and sold by the FDIC to JPMorgan Chase, leading to additional uncertainty in the banking sector and increased market disruption.

Inflation has moderated over the last year, declining substantially from its peak in 2022. While the Federal Reserve announced various rate increases during the beginning of the year, they have been on pause on rate hikes since July 2023 while projecting rate cuts in 2024, as inflation has steadily cooled. The Consumer Price Index increased 0.3% in December 2023 and 3.4% on an annual basis. A slight increase in inflation was seen from November 2023 to December 2023 following two months of decreases. The inflation rate increase appears to have subsided largely due to the easing of supply chain pressures that surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. The economy continues to grow at a pace that is faster than estimates, with annualized growth for GDP at 3.3% as of December 31, 2023. Long-term interest rates have fallen, and the stock market has risen sharply, easing overall financial conditions.

To the extent interest rates begin to rise again, we could experience increased interest expense on our outstanding variable rate debt and future variable and fixed-rate debt, thereby adversely affecting cash flow and our ability to service our indebtedness and pay distributions.

Signs of a strong U.S. labor market emerged as the end of the year approached, with the unemployment rate remaining relatively unchanged near 50-year lows, ranging from 3.5% to 3.8% through 2023. The unemployment rate ended the year at 3.7%, up only 20 bps from December 2022. During 2023, there was an increase in jobs added in the U.S., in particular during each of September 2023 and December 2023, when the reported employment gains exceeded forecasts by adding 336,600 jobs and 216,000 jobs, respectively. Further, wage growth remained strong, with average hourly earnings up 4.1% year over year.

Elevated mortgage rates, high home prices and low home inventory drove housing market conditions. The inventory of existing homes for sale remained low throughout the year primarily due to the reluctance of homeowners to change residence and lose the low interest rates locked-in when they purchased or refinanced their mortgages at sub-3% mortgage rates in 2021. Further, while mortgage rates remained high overall, they began to ease during the fourth quarter of 2023 following increases since the first quarter of 2023.

The market conditions discussed above influence our investment strategy and results, many of which have been impacted by continued high inflation and mortgage rates, an increase in GDP growth rate, as well as the other global events such as the ongoing war and tensions in the Middle East, among other factors. See Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business—Unfavorable global economic and political conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations” and “—Market conditions could negatively impact our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.”

The following table summarizes the change in U.S. GDP estimates annualized rate according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis:

We believe the estimates and assumptions underlying our consolidated financial statements are reasonable and supportable based on the information available as of December 31, 2023; however, uncertainty related to market volatility and inflationary pressures driving the federal funds rate to increase makes any estimates and assumptions as of December 31, 2023 inherently less certain than they would be absent the current economic environment. Actual results may materially differ from those estimates. Market volatility and inflationary pressures and the ongoing war and tensions in the Middle East and their impact on the current financial, economic and capital markets environment, and future developments in these and other areas present uncertainty and risk with respect to our financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and ability to pay distributions.

On March 5, 2021, Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (“ICE”) announced that ICE Benchmark Administration Limited, the administrator of LIBOR, intended to stop publication of the majority of USD-LIBOR tenors (overnight, 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-month) on June 30, 2023. On January 1, 2022, ICE discontinued the publication of the 1-week and 2-month tenors of USD-LIBOR. In the U.S., the ARRC identified the SOFR as its preferred alternative rate for U.S. dollar-based LIBOR. SOFR is a measure of the cost of borrowing cash overnight, collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities and is based on directly observable U.S. Treasury-backed repurchase transactions.

Rithm Capital completed its transition from LIBOR to an alternative benchmark, mainly SOFR, in June 2023. We do not currently intend to amend our Series A, Series B or Series C to change the existing USD-LIBOR cessation fallback language.

Our portfolio, as of December 31, 2023, is composed of origination and servicing, our investment portfolio, mortgage loans receivable, and asset management, as described in more detail below (dollars in thousands).

Our origination and servicing business operates within our Mortgage Company. We have a multi-channel lending platform, offering purchase and refinance loan products. We originate loans through our Retail channel, provide refinance opportunities to eligible existing servicing customers through our Direct to Consumer channel, and purchase originated loans through our Wholesale and Correspondent channels. We originate or purchase residential mortgage loans conforming to the underwriting standards of the GSEs and Ginnie Mae, government-insured residential mortgage loans which are insured by the FHA, VA and USDA, and Non-Agency and non-QM loans through our SMART Loan Series. Our non-QM loan products provide a variety of options for highly qualified borrowers who fall outside the specific requirements of Agency residential mortgage loans.

We generate revenue through sales of residential mortgage loans, including, but not limited to, gain on residential loans originated and sold and the value of MSRs retained on transfer of the loans. Profit margins per loan vary by channel, with Correspondent typically being the lowest and Direct to Consumer being the highest. We sell conforming loans to the GSEs and Ginnie Mae and securitize Non-QM residential loans. We utilize warehouse financing to fund loans at origination through the sale date.

Included in our Origination segment are the financial results of two of our services businesses, eStreet and Avenue 365. eStreet offers appraisal valuation services, and Avenue 365 provides title insurance and settlement services to our Mortgage Company.

The tables below provide selected operating statistics for our Origination and Servicing segment: