Ready Capital Corp - Annual Report: 2020 (Form 10-K)

​

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

​

FORM 10-K

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

​

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

OR

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

For the transition period from            to

Commission File Number: 001-35808

READY CAPITAL CORPORATION

​

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.Yes ☒   No ☐

​

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

​

As of June 30, 2020, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $359.0 million based on the closing sales price of the registrant’s common stock on June 30, 2020 as reported on the New York Stock Exchange.

​

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date: The registrant has 54,434,578 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, outstanding as of March 15, 2021.

​

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

​

Portions of the registrant’s proxy statement for the 2021 annual meeting of stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this annual report on Form 10-K.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

​

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

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

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

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Upon the occurrence of these or other factors, our business, financial condition, liquidity and consolidated results of operations may vary materially from those expressed in, or implied by, any such forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. These forward-looking statements apply only as of the date of this annual report on Form 10-K. We are not obligated, and do not intend, to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. See Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of this annual report on Form 10-K.

​

​

Table of Contents

RISK FACTOR SUMMARY

​

An investment in our securities involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks summarized in Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of this annual report on Form 10-K. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

PART I

​

Item 1. Business

​

General

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

​

​

​

​

​

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

​

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

​

Table of Contents

Our Manager

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

​

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

​

Our Investment Strategy and Market Opportunities Across Our Operating Segments

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

​

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

​

The following table illustrates certain information with respect to our four business segments as of December 31, 2020.

 ​

* Waterfall employees includes 169 employees of Knight Capital.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

The commercial mortgage market is largely bifurcated by loan size between “large balance” loans and “small balance” loans.  Large balance commercial loans typically include those loans with original principal balances of at least $40 million and are primarily financed by insurance companies and commercial mortgage backed securities (“CMBS”) conduits.  SBC loans typically include those loans with original principal amounts of between $500,000 and $35 million and are primarily financed by community and regional banks, specialty finance companies and loans guaranteed under the SBA loan programs.

​

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

​

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

​

Our Loan Portfolio

The table below presents a summary of the sourcing of our loan assets as of December 31, 2020 (in thousands):

​

​

The charts presented below illustrate additional information related to the geographic concentration, collateral concentration, and lien type of our loan portfolio:

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

Our Acquisitions Platform

Our acquisitions segment represents our investments in acquired SBC loans and purchased future receivables originated as part of our Knight Capital platform. We hold SBC loans to term, and we seek to maximize the value of the non-performing SBC loans acquired by us through proprietary loan reperformance programs. Where this is not possible, such as in the case of many non-performing loans, we seek to effect property resolution through the use of borrower based resolution alternatives to foreclosure.

​

Our Manager specializes in acquiring SBC loans that are sold by banks, including as part of bank recapitalizations or mergers, and from other financial institutions such as thrifts and non-bank lenders. Other sources of SBC loans include special servicers of large balance SBC ABS and CMBS trusts, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for failed banks, servicers of non-performing SBA Section 7(a) Program loans, and Community Development Companies originating loans under the SBA 504 program, GSEs, and state economic development authorities. Over the last several years, our Manager has developed relationships with many of these entities, primarily banks and their advisors. In many cases, we are able to acquire SBC loans through negotiated transactions, at times partnering with acquiring banks or private equity firms in bank acquisitions and recapitalizations. We believe that our Manager’s experience, reputation and ability to underwrite SBC loans make it an attractive buyer for this asset class, and that its network of relationships will continue to produce opportunities for it to acquire SBC loans on attractive terms.

​

Competition for SBC loan asset acquisitions has been limited due to the special servicing expertise required to manage SBC loan assets due to the small size of each loan, the uniqueness of the real properties that collateralize the loans, licensing requirements, the high volume of loans needed to build portfolios, and the need to utilize residential mortgage credit analysis in the underwriting process. These factors have limited institutional investor participation in SBC loan acquisitions, which has allowed us to acquire SBC loans with attractive risk-adjusted return profiles.

​

The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2020 related to our acquired loan portfolio (in thousands):

​

​

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

The following table summarizes our acquired loan securitization activities ($ in millions):

​

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

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

Our Loan Origination Platforms

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

​

​

​

​

​

​

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

​

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

​

​

Through December 31, 2020, we have originated approximately $6.4 billion in SBC loans since Ready Capital’s inception.  The following chart summarizes our annual SBC loan originations since 2017:

Table of Contents

​

As of December 31, 2020, our originated SBC loans held in our portfolio had a UPB and carrying value of approximately $2.5 billion. Our originated SBC loans, substantially all of which are currently classified as performing loans, represented approximately 54.7% of the UPB and 55.5% of the carrying value of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2020.

​

The following table summarizes our originated SBC loan securitization activities ($ in millions):
​

​

Additionally, ReadyCap Commercial has been approved by Freddie Mac as one of 12 originators and servicers for multi-family loan products under the Freddie Mac program. As of December 31, 2020, ReadyCap Commercial employs 85 people focused on originating and supporting the SBC loan origination business.

​

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

​

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

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

SBA Origination, Acquisition and Servicing Platforms

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

​

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

​

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

​

We are actively participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) through the United States Department of the Treasury and SBA. PPP loans have: (a) an interest rate of 1.0%, (b) a five-year loan term to maturity for loans made on or after June 5, 2020 (loans made prior to June 5, 2020 have a two-year term, however borrowers and lenders may mutually agree to extend the maturity for such loans to five years); and (c) principal and interest payments deferred for six months from the date of disbursement. The SBA will guarantee 100% of the PPP loans made to eligible borrowers. The entire principal amount of the borrower’s PPP loan, including any accrued interest, is eligible to be reduced by the loan forgiveness amount under the PPP. These loans also earn an origination fee of 1% to 5%, depending on the loan size.

​

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

Table of Contents

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

​

​

​

​

The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2020 related to our acquired and originated SBA 7(a) loan portfolio (in thousands):

​

We have originated more than $819.5 million in SBA loans since our program’s inception in mid-2015 through December 31, 2020, excluding PPP loans. As of December 31, 2020, our originated SBA loans held in our loan portfolio had a UPB of $471.8 million and a carrying value of approximately $460.0 million.

​

The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2020 related to our sale of originated SBA loans (in thousands):

​

​

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

​

Table of Contents

Residential Mortgage Origination Platforms

GMFS currently originates loans that are eligible to be purchased, guaranteed or insured by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA and USDA through retail, correspondent and broker channels. GMFS is licensed in 18 states and provides a wide range of residential mortgage services, including home purchase financing, mortgage refinancing, reverse mortgages, new construction loans and condo financing. GMFS operates through 12 retail branches located in Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. GMFS employs both a servicing retained and servicing released execution strategy. During 2020, GMFS retained approximately 98% of loans originated. Our residential mortgage loan portfolio represented approximately 5.9% of the carrying value and 5.6% of the UPB of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2020. Our residential mortgage origination platform employed a total of 304 people as of December 31, 2020.

​

GMFS provides a residential origination platform to our sourcing capabilities, allowing access to new credit investment opportunities while controlling the origination process.  We believe we can enhance and grow the GMFS origination platform through better access to capital and an expanded product offering. In addition, using this platform we intend to continue to invest in MSRs through retention and secondary market transactions and to selectively pursue new residential product offerings.

​

The following tables set forth certain historical information on our GMFS residential mortgage portfolio:

​

​

​

​

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

​

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

Table of Contents

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

​

​

We operate in a competitive market for investment opportunities and competition may limit our ability to originate or acquire the potential investments in the pipeline. The consummation of any of the potential loans in the pipeline depends upon, among other things, one or more of the following: available capital and liquidity, our Manager’s allocation policy, satisfactory completion of our due diligence investigation and investment process, approval of our Manager’s Investment Committee, market conditions, our agreement with the seller on the terms and structure of such potential loan, and the execution and delivery of satisfactory transaction documentation. Historically, we have acquired less than a majority of the assets in our Manager’s pipeline at any one time and there can be no assurance the assets currently in its pipeline will be acquired or originated by our Manager in the future. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations- Key Financial Measures and Indicators” included in this annual report on Form 10-K for further information on our acquisition and origination pipelines.

​

FINANCING STRATEGY

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

​

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

​

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

​

As of December 31, 2020, our committed and outstanding financing arrangements included:

​

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

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

​

As of December 31, 2020, we had a leverage ratio of 2.2x on a recourse debt-to-equity ratio consisting of 1.2x on warehouse credit facilities and borrowings under repurchase agreements, excluding agency, 0.5x on corporate debt and 0.5x on agency secured borrowings.

Table of Contents

HEDGING STRATEGY

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

​

We also use hedging instruments in connection with our residential mortgage loan origination platform in an attempt to offset some of the impact of prepayments on our loans. In particular, we use MBS forward sales contracts to manage the interest rate price risk associated with the interest rate lock commitments we make with potential borrowers.  In utilizing leverage and interest rate hedges, our objectives include, where desirable, locking in, on a long-term basis, a spread between the yield on our assets and the cost of our financing in an effort to improve returns to our stockholders. We will undertake to hedge our originated loan inventory pending securitization with respect to changes in securitization liability cost resulting from both changes in benchmark treasuries and credit spreads. Hedges are periodically re-balanced to match expected duration of the securitization and are closed at securitization issuance with the resulting gain or loss allocated to the retained basis in the securitization with the objective of protecting the yield for the aforementioned changes in securitization liabilities.

​

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

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

​

​

​

​

COMPETITION

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

​

In the face of this competition, we expect to have access to our Manager’s professionals and their industry expertise, which may provide us with a competitive advantage in sourcing transactions and help it assess acquisition and origination risks and determine appropriate pricing for potential assets. Additionally, we believe that we are currently one of only a handful of active market participants in the secondary SBC loan market. Due to the special servicing expertise needed to effectively

Table of Contents

manage these assets, the small size of each loan, the uniqueness of the real properties that collateralize the loans and the need to bring residential mortgage credit analysis into the underwriting process, we expect a competitive demand for these assets to remain constrained. We seek to manage credit risk through our loan-level pre-origination or pre-acquisition due diligence and underwriting processes, which as of December 31, 2020 has limited the amount of realized losses. However, we may not be able to achieve our business goals or expectations due to the competitive risks that we face. For additional information concerning these competitive risks, see “Item 1A - Risk Factors – Risks Related to Our Business – New entrants in the market” for SBC loan acquisitions and originations could adversely impact our ability to acquire SBC loans at attractive prices and originate SBC loans at attractive risk-adjusted returns.

​

HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

We are managed by Waterfall pursuant to the management agreement with Waterfall. Our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer are dedicated exclusively to us, along with several of Waterfall’s accounting professionals, a marketing professional, and an information technology professional who are also dedicated primarily to us. We or Waterfall may in the future hire additional personnel that may be dedicated to our business. However, other than our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, Waterfall is not obligated under the management agreement to dedicate any of its personnel exclusively to our business, nor is it or its personnel obligated to dedicate any specific portion of its or their time to our business. Accordingly, with the exception of our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, our executive officers are not required to devote any specific amount of time to our business. We are responsible for the costs of our own employees. In our recruitment efforts, we strive to have a diverse group of candidates to consider for roles. Our Manager and we invest heavily in developing and supporting our employees throughout their careers. We strive to maintain a work environment that fosters professionalism, high standards of business ethics, teamwork and cooperation. In fiscal 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, our workforce primarily worked remotely and our Manager instituted safety protocols to enable certain employees to work on site when needed. With the exception of our ReadyCap Commercial, ReadyCap Lending, Knight Capital, and GMFS subsidiaries, which will employ their own personnel, we do not expect to have our own employees.  Our corporate headquarters are located at 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 50^th Floor, New York, NY 10020, and our telephone number is (212) 257-4600.

​

INFORMATION ABOUT OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Set forth below are the name, age, position in the Company and certain biographical information for our executive officers and other key personnel.

​

Thomas E. Capasse, 64 is the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer. He is a Manager and co-founder of our Manager. Prior to founding Waterfall, Mr. Capasse managed the principal finance groups at Greenwich Capital from 1995 until 1997, Nomura Securities from 1997 until 2001, and Macquarie Securities from 2001 until 2004. Mr. Capasse has significant and long-standing experience in the securitization market as a founding member of Merrill Lynch’s ABS Group (1983 – 1994) with a focus on MBS transactions (including the initial Subprime Mortgage and Manufactured Housing ABS) and experience in many other ABS sectors. Mr. Capasse began his career as a fixed income analyst at Dean Witter and Bank of Boston. Mr. Capasse received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Bowdoin College in 1979.

​

Jack J. Ross, 64 is the President and member of our Board of Directors. He is a Manager and co-founder of our Manager. Prior to founding Waterfall in January 2005, Mr. Ross was the founder of Licent Capital, a specialty broker/dealer for intellectual property securitization. From 1987 until 1999, Mr. Ross was employed by Merrill Lynch where he managed the real estate finance and ABS groups. Mr. Ross began his career at Drexel Burnham Lambert where he worked on several of the early ABS transactions and at Laventhol & Horwath where he served as a senior auditor. Mr. Ross received a Master of Business Administration degree in Finance with distinction from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business in 1984 and a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting, cum laude, from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1978.

​

Thomas Buttacavoli, 44 is the Chief Investment Officer and Portfolio Manager of our SBC loan portfolio. He is a Manager, Managing Director and co-founder of our Manager. Prior to joining Waterfall in 2005, Mr. Buttacavoli was a Structured Finance Analyst specializing in intellectual property securitization at Licent Capital. Prior to joining Licent Capital, he was a Strategic Planning Analyst at BNY Capital Markets. Mr. Buttacavoli started his career as a Financial Analyst within Merrill Lynch’s Partnership Finance Group. Mr. Buttacavoli received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Finance and Accounting from New York University’s Stern School of Business in 1999.

​

Table of Contents

Andrew Ahlborn, 37 is the Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Ahlborn joined our Manager in 2010 and has been the Controller of Ready Capital since 2015. Prior to joining our Manager, he worked in Ernst & Young, LLP's Financial Services Office. Mr. Ahlborn received a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from Fordham University's Gabelli School of Business and a Master of Business Administration through Columbia Business School. He is a licensed Certified Public Accountant in New York.

​

Gary T. Taylor, 62 is the Chief Operating Officer. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Taylor served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Newtek Business Credit from May 2015 to March 2019. From 2013 to 2015, Mr. Taylor was Managing Director at Brevet Capital Management, and before that he was Chief Operating Officer of CIT Small Business Lending from 2007 to 2013. Earlier in his career, Mr. Taylor held numerous roles within the financial services industry including Lehman Brothers, Moody's Investor Service, AT&T Capital Corporation, Resolution Trust Corporation, First Chicago Bank & Trust, and Chase Manhattan Bank. Mr. Taylor received a Bachelor of Science degree, with Honors, in Business from Florida A&M University.

​

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On December 6, 2020, we, Anworth, and RC Merger Subsidiary, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Ready Capital (“Merger Sub”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions therein, Anworth will be merged with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub remaining as a wholly owned subsidiary of us (such surviving company, the “Surviving Company” and such transaction, the “Merger”). Following the consummation of the Merger, the Surviving Company will be contributed to the Operating Partnership in exchange for additional partnership units.

​

The Merger with Anworth, a specialty finance company that focuses primarily on residential mortgage-backed securities and residential loans that are either rated “investment grade” or are guaranteed by federally sponsored enterprises, is expected to substantially increase our capital base and equity capitalization, which we believe will support the continued growth of our diversified platform and execution of our strategy. We believe that the Merger will provide us with improved scale, liquidity and capital alternatives, as well as increased portfolio diversification and potential cost savings and efficiencies over time resulting from the allocation of operating expenses over a larger portfolio. Our underwriting of the Merger with Anworth suggests that following the completion of the Merger, based on expected market conditions at such time, our book value will be in excess of $1 billion. Following the completion of the Merger, we currently intend to manage the liquidation and runoff of certain assets within the Anworth portfolio and repay certain indebtedness on the Anworth portfolio, and to redeploy the capital into opportunities in our core SBC strategies and other assets that we expect will generate attractive risk-adjusted returns and long-term earnings accretion. We currently expect that the Merger will close as soon as the first quarter of 2021, subject to the respective approvals of our stockholders and Anworth’s stockholders and other customary closing conditions.

​

Concurrently with entering into the Merger Agreement, we, Sutherland Partners, LP and Waterfall Asset Management, LLC entered into the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Management Agreement (the “Amendment”), to amend the Amended and Restated Management Agreement, dated May 9, 2016 (the “Management Agreement”). The Amendment provides that, contingent upon the closing of the Merger, the Manager’s base management fee will be reduced by $1,000,000 per quarter for each of the first full four quarters following the effective time of the Merger (the “Temporary Fee Reduction”). Other than the Temporary Fee Reduction set forth in the Amendment, the terms of the Management Agreement remain the same.

​

Subsequent to December 31, 2020, we completed the issuance of a public offering of $201.3 million in 5.75% senior notes due 2026 on February 10, 2021. We intend to use the net proceeds from the offering to redeem all of the outstanding 2021 Notes. We intend to use the remainder of the net proceeds for general business purposes, including to fund our small balance commercial origination and acquisition pipelines.

Table of Contents

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

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

​

​

Item 1A. Risk Factors

​

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

​

​

Risks Related to Our Business

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Our acquired non-performing loans represented in the aggregate 1.4% of the UPB and 1.3% of the carrying value of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2020. As of December 31, 2020, our non-performing acquired loan portfolio had a current unpaid principal balance of $62.8 million and a carrying value of $57.0 million. We consider a loan to be performing if the borrower is current on 100% of the contractual payments due for principal and interest during the most recent 90 days. We consider a loan to be non-performing if the borrower does not meet the criteria of a performing loan. Non-performing SBC loans are subject to increased risks of credit loss for a variety of reasons, including, the underlying property is too highly-leveraged or the borrower has experienced financial distress. Whatever the reason, the borrower may be unable to meet its contractual debt service obligation to us or our subsidiaries. Non-performing SBC loans may

Table of Contents

require a substantial amount of workout negotiations and/or restructuring, which may divert our attention from other activities and entail, among other things, a substantial reduction in the interest rate or capitalization of past due interest. However, even if restructurings are successfully accomplished, risks still exist that borrowers will not be able or willing to maintain the restructured payments or refinance the restructured mortgage upon maturity. Additional risks inherent in the acquisition of non-performing SBC loans include undisclosed claims, undisclosed tax liens that may have priority, higher legal costs and greater difficulties in determining the value of the underlying property.

​

As of December 31, 2020, the average loan-to-value (“LTV”) of ReadyCap Commercial’s originated portfolio was 65%. The weighted average LTV of our acquired loans was 39% as of December 31, 2020. If such SBC loans with higher LTV ratios become delinquent, we may experience greater credit losses compared to lower-leveraged properties. Additional risks inherent in the acquisition of delinquent SBC loans include undisclosed claims, undisclosed tax liens that may have priority, higher legal costs and greater difficulties in determining the value of the underlying property.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Our credit and underwriting philosophy for both acquired and originated SBC loans encompass individual borrower and property diligence, taking into consideration several factors, including (i) the seller’s data files, including data integrity, compliance review and custodial file review; (ii) rent rolls and other property operating data; (iii) personal credit reports of the borrower, owner and/or operator; (iv) property valuations; (v) environmental reviews; and (vi) tax and title searches. We also generally ask sellers to provide representations and warranties on SBC loans we acquire, and if we are unable to obtain representations and warranties, we will factor the increased risk into the price we pay for such loans. Our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted to the extent we rely on information that is misleading, inaccurate or incomplete.

​

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

​

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

Table of Contents

time in business and length of time owning the property. Loans originated with exceptions may result in a higher number of delinquencies and defaults, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

In the future, it is possible that we may find it necessary or desirable to foreclose on some, if not many, of the SBC loans we acquire, and the foreclosure process may be lengthy and expensive. Borrowers may resist mortgage foreclosure actions by asserting numerous claims, counterclaims and defenses against us including, without limitation, numerous lender liability claims and defenses, even when such assertions may have no basis in fact, in an effort to prolong the foreclosure action and force us into a modification of the SBC loan or a favorable buy-out of the borrower’s position. In some states, foreclosure actions can sometimes take several years or more to litigate. At any time prior to or during the foreclosure proceedings, the borrower may file for bankruptcy, which would have the effect of staying the foreclosure actions and further delaying the foreclosure process. Foreclosure may create a negative public perception of the related mortgaged property, resulting in a decrease in its value. Even if we are successful in foreclosing on a SBC loan, the liquidation proceeds upon sale of the underlying real estate may not be sufficient to recover our cost basis in the SBC loan, resulting in a loss to us. Furthermore, any costs or delays involved in the completion of a foreclosure of the SBC loan or a liquidation of the underlying property will further reduce the proceeds and thus increase the loss. Any such reductions could materially and adversely affect the value of the commercial SBC loans in which we invest and, therefore, could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

​

​

Table of Contents

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Our properties may be subject to impairment charges.

​

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

​

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

​

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

Table of Contents

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

In the course of our business, we could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title. In such a circumstance, we may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or we may be required to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. If we ever become subject to significant environmental liabilities, our business, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, an owner or operator of real property may become liable under various federal, state and local laws, for the costs of removal of certain hazardous substances released on its property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release of such hazardous substances. The presence of hazardous substances may adversely affect an owner’s ability to sell real estate or borrow using real estate as collateral. To the extent that an owner of an underlying property becomes liable for removal costs, the ability of the owner to make debt payments may be reduced, which in turn may adversely affect the value of the relevant mortgage-related assets held by us.

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

​

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

​

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

​

The departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union could affect our investments directly.

​

The decision made in the British referendum of June 23, 2016 to leave the European Union, commonly referred to as "Brexit," has led to volatility in the financial markets of the United Kingdom and more broadly across Europe and may also lead to weakening in consumer, corporate and financial confidence in such markets. On January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom officially withdrew from the European Union (such withdrawal commonly being referred to as “Brexit”). As of that date, the United Kingdom entered a transitional period with the European Union, which ended on December 31, 2020. On December 24, 2020, the European Union and the United Kingdom agreed on the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the "Trade and Cooperation Agreement"), which sets out the principles of the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom following the end of the transitional period.  

Table of Contents

​

We currently hold, and may acquire additional, investments that are denominated in Pounds Sterling (“GBP”) and EURs (including loans secured by assets located in the United Kingdom or Europe), as well as equity interests in real estate properties located in Europe. Our assets and liabilities denominated in GBP may be subject to increased risks related to these currency rate fluctuations and our net assets in U.S. dollar terms may decline. Currency volatility may mean that our assets and liabilities are adversely affected by market movements and may make it more difficult, or more expensive, for us to execute appropriate currency hedging policies. In addition, Brexit could lead to legal uncertainty and potentially divergent national laws and regulations as the United Kingdom determines which E.U. laws to replace or replicate. Brexit could also have a destabilizing effect if other E.U. member states were to consider the option of leaving the European Union. For these reasons, the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union could have adverse consequences on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

​

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe disruptions in the U.S. and global economy and to our business, and may continue to have an adverse impact on our performance, financial condition and results of operations.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in many countries continues to adversely impact global economic activity and has contributed to significant volatility in financial markets. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization publicly characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic. On March 13, 2020, former President Trump declared the COVID-19 outbreak a national emergency. The global impact of the pandemic has been rapidly evolving, and as cases of the virus increased around the world, governments and organizations have implemented a variety of actions to mobilize efforts to mitigate the ongoing and expected impact. Many governments have reacted by instituting quarantines, restrictions on travel, school closures, bans on public events and on public gatherings, “shelter in place” or “stay at home” rules, restrictions on types of business that may continue to operate, and/or restrictions on types of construction projects that may continue. Although, in certain cases, exceptions may be available for certain essential operations and businesses, and in other cases certain of these restrictions have been relaxed or phased out, many of these or similar restrictions remain in place, continue to be implemented or additional restrictions are being considered. There is no assurance that any exceptions or easing of restrictions will enable us to avoid adverse effects to our results of operations and business. Further, such actions have created, and expect to continue to create, disruption in real estate financing transactions and the commercial real estate market and adversely impact a number of industries, including many small businesses throughout the United States. The pandemic has triggered a period of economic slowdown. Experts are uncertain as to how long these conditions may last.

​

In the United States, there have been a number of federal, state and local government initiatives applicable to a significant number of mortgage loans, to manage the spread of the virus and its impact on the economy, financial markets and continuity of businesses of all sizes and industries. In March 2020, the U.S. Congress approved, and former President Trump signed into law, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). The CARES Act provides approximately $2 trillion in financial assistance to individuals and businesses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act, among other things, provided certain measures to support individuals and businesses in maintaining solvency through monetary relief, including in the form of financing and loan forgiveness and/or forbearance.  The Federal Reserve implemented asset purchase and lending programs, including purchases of residential and commercial mortgage backed securities and the establishment of lending facilities to support loans to small- and mid-size businesses. To further address the continued economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Congress passed, and former President Trump signed into law, a second COVID-19 relief bill in December 2020, which provided approximately $900 billion in additional financial assistance to individuals and businesses, including funds for rental assistance to be distributed by state and local governments and a revival of the forgivable small business loan program originally provided for under the CARES Act. Although these actions by the federal government, together with other actions taken at the federal, regional and local levels, are intended to support these economies, and while President Biden, with the support of a Democratic Congress, is likely to implement additional relief measures in 2021, there is no guarantee that such measures will provide sufficient relief to avoid continued adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. Similar actions have been taken by governments around the globe but as is the case in the United States there is no assurance that such measures will prevent further economic disruptions, which may continue to be significant, around the world.

​

​

Table of Contents

We believe that both our and our Manager’s ability to operate, our level of business activity and the profitability of our business, as well as the values of, and the cash flows from, the assets we own have been, and will continue to be, impacted by the effects of COVID-19 and could in the future be impacted by another pandemic or other major public health issues. While we have implemented risk management and contingency plans and taken preventive measures and other precautions, no predictions of specific scenarios can be made with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic and such measures may not adequately predict the impact on our business from such events.  

​

The effects of COVID-19 have adversely impacted the value of our assets, our business, financial condition and results of operations and cash flows, and both our and our Manager’s ability to operate successfully. Some of the factors that impacted us to date and may continue to affect us include the following:

​

​

The rapid development and fluidity of the circumstances resulting from this pandemic precludes any prediction as to the ultimate adverse impact of COVID-19. There are no comparable recent events which provide guidance as to the effect of the spread of COVID-19 and a pandemic on our business. Nevertheless, COVID-19 and the current financial, economic and capital markets environment, and future developments in these and other areas present material uncertainty and risk with respect to our performance, financial condition, volume of business, results of operations and cash flows. Moreover, many risk factors set forth in this annual report on Form 10-K should be interpreted as heightened risks as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

​

​

Table of Contents

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

​

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

​

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Our loan portfolio is concentrated in California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois and represents approximately 18.1%, 14.2%, 9.8%, 7.8%, and 5.2%, respectively, of our total loans as of December 31, 2020. Continued deterioration of economic conditions in these or in any other state in which we have a significant concentration of borrowers could have

Table of Contents

a material and adverse effect on our business by reducing demand for new financings, limiting the ability of customers to repay existing loans and impairing the value of our real estate collateral and real estate owned properties. For example, the real estate market in South Florida has experienced a significant downturn which has an adverse impact on the collateral securing our loans in these areas.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Table of Contents

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

We are an approved Freddie Mac seller/servicer. As an approved seller/servicer, we are required to conduct certain aspects of our operations in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines published by Freddie Mac and we are required to pledge a certain amount of cash to Freddie Mac to collateralize potential obligations to it. Freddie Mac performed an audit in June 2016. As a result of that audit, ReadyCap Commercial received an overall assessment of Satisfactory. Failure to

Table of Contents

maintain our status as an approved seller/servicer would mean we would not be able to sell mortgage loans to Freddie Mac, could result in us being required to re-purchase loans previously sold to Freddie Mac, or could otherwise restrict our business and investment options and could harm our business and expose us to losses or other claims. Freddie Mac may, in the future, require us to hold additional capital or pledge additional cash or assets in order to maintain approved seller/servicer status, which, if required, would adversely impact our financial results. Loans sold to Freddie Mac that may be required to be re-purchased as of December 31, 2020 included 19 loans with a combined unpaid principal balance of $50.4 million.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

Table of Contents

other assets at prices that are too low, or to miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging based on faulty models and data may prove to be unsuccessful.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

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

Table of Contents

servicer as servicer and the appointment of a successor without the permission of the bankruptcy court or the consent of the servicer.

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Table of Contents

During the past few years, the Trump Administration has sought to deregulate the U.S. financial industry, such as by altering provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, including certain provisions affecting the mortgage industry. These efforts included former President Trump signing into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the "EGRRCPA") in 2018, which included several provisions that seek to reduce the regulatory burden on smaller banking entities engaged in mortgage lending, as well as to expand mortgage credit availability. For example, the EGRRCPA exempts designated institutions from compliance with ability-to-pay requirements for certain qualified residential mortgage loans, expanding the definition of qualified mortgages which may be held by a financial institution, and also exempts certain institutions from data disclosure requirements under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975. It is possible that Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, with the support of the Biden Administration, will roll back some of the changes made by EGRRCPA to the Dodd-Frank Act, although it is not possible at this time to predict the nature or extent of any amendments.

​

The Biden Administration, along with the Democratic Congress, is likely to focus in the short-term on additional stimulus measures to address the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than comprehensive financial services and banking reform. However, in the long-term the Biden Administration and Congress are likely to take a more active approach to banking and financial regulation than the prior Trump Administration, particularly to promote policy goals involving climate change, racial equity, environmental, social, and corporate governance ("ESG") matters, consumer financial protection and infrastructure. In addition, the substance of regulatory supervision may be influenced through the appointment of individuals to the Federal Reserve Board and other financial regulatory bodies. With the support of a Democratic majority in Congress, President Biden is more likely to be able to have his nominees to such bodies confirmed and, accordingly, carry out the Administration's regulatory agenda. We cannot predict the ultimate content, timing, or effect of legislative and/or regulatory actions under a Biden Administration and Democratic Congress, nor is it possible at this time to estimate the impact of any such actions which could have a dramatic impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

​

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

​

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

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

Table of Contents

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Interest rate risk arises for the issuer from (i) the pricing terms on the underlying collateral, (ii) the terms of the interest rate paid to holders of the ABS and (iii) the need to mark to market the excess servicing or spread account proceeds carried

Table of Contents

on the issuing vehicle’s balance sheet. For the holder of the security, interest rate risk depends on the expected life of the ABS, which may depend on prepayments on the underlying assets or the occurrence of wind-down or termination events. If the servicer becomes subject to financial difficulty or otherwise ceases to be able to carry out its functions, it may be difficult to find other acceptable substitute servicers and cash flow disruptions or losses may occur, particularly with underlying collateral comprised of non-standard receivables or receivables originated by private retailers who collect many of the payments at their stores.

​

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

​

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

​

We may invest in SBC loans, SBC ABS and other real estate-related investments. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political considerations, and other factors beyond our control. Rising interest rates generally reduce the demand for mortgage loans due to the higher cost of borrowing. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans originated may affect the volume of our target assets available to us, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives. Rising interest rates may also cause our target assets that were issued prior to an interest rate increase to provide yields that are below prevailing market interest rates. If rising interest rates cause us to be unable to acquire a sufficient volume of our target assets with a yield that is above our borrowing cost, our ability to satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and make distributions may be materially and adversely affected.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Our ARMs are subject to periodic and lifetime interest rate caps. Periodic interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase during any given period. Lifetime interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase through maturity of a loan. Our borrowings, including our repurchase agreement and securitizations, are not subject to similar

Table of Contents

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

​

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

​

Increases in interest rates may negatively affect the fair market value of our assets. Any fixed-rate assets we hold or originate generally will be more negatively affected by these increases than adjustable-rate assets. In accordance with accounting rules, we will be required to reduce our earnings for any decrease in the fair market value of our assets that are accounted for under the fair value option. We will be required to evaluate our assets on a quarterly basis to determine their fair value by using third-party bid price indications provided by dealers who make markets in these assets or by third-party pricing services. If the fair value of an asset is not available from a dealer or third-party pricing service, we will estimate the fair value of the asset using a variety of methods, including discounted cash flow analysis, matrix pricing, option-adjusted spread models and fundamental analysis. Aggregate characteristics taken into consideration include type of collateral, index, margin, periodic cap, lifetime cap, underwriting standards, age and delinquency experience. However, the fair value reflects estimates and may not be indicative of the amounts we would receive in a current market exchange. If we determine that a security is other-than-temporarily impaired, we would be required to reduce the value of such security on our balance sheet by recording an impairment charge in our income statement and our stockholders’ equity would be correspondingly reduced. Reductions in stockholders’ equity decrease the amounts we may borrow to originate or purchase additional target assets, which could restrict our ability to increase our net income.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

Table of Contents

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

​

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

​

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

​

In 2011, the SEC solicited public comment on a wide range of issues relating to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, including the nature of the assets that qualify for purposes of the exclusion and whether mortgage REITs should be regulated in a manner similar to registered investment companies. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of REITs, including the SEC, or its staff, providing more specific or different guidance regarding this exclusion, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If our Company or our subsidiaries fail to maintain an exception or exemption from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (i) change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment

Table of Contents

company, (ii) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or (iii) register as an investment company, any of which would negatively affect the value of our shares of common stock, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to make distributions which would have an adverse effect on our business and the value of our shares of common stock.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

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

​

Through Knight Capital, we provide working capital advances to small businesses through the purchase of their future revenues. We enter into a contract with the business whereby we pay the business an upfront amount in return for a specific amount of the business’s future revenue receivables. Our working capital advance activity presents risks, including the illiquidity of the cash advances; our critical reliance on certain individuals to operate the business; collection issues and

Table of Contents

challenges given that working capital advances are generally unsecured; limited availability of financing sources, such as securitizations, to fund such advances; and sensitivity to general economic and regulatory conditions. We face the risk that merchants will fail to repay advances made by us in these transactions. Rates at which merchants do not repay amounts owed under these transactions may be significantly affected by economic downturns or general economic conditions beyond our control or beyond the control of the small businesses who repay the amounts advanced based on the volume of their revenue streams. While we have established an allowance for doubtful purchased future receivables based on historical and other objective information, it is also dependent on our subjective assessment based upon our experience and judgment. Actual losses are difficult to forecast and, as a result, there can be no assurance that our allowance for losses will be sufficient to absorb any actual losses. If we are unable to collect the full amount of the working capital advance receivable we acquire through the advance, we may be required to expend monies in connection with remedial actions, which expenditures could be material.  In addition, the working capital advances that we make are relatively illiquid with no established market for their purchase and sale, and there can be no assurance that we would be able to liquidate those investments in a timely manner, or at all.

​

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

​

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

​

Risks Related to Our Company

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

A cyber incident is considered to be any adverse event that threatens the confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information resources. These incidents may be an intentional attack or an unintentional event and could involve gaining unauthorized access to our information systems for purposes of misappropriating assets, stealing confidential information, corrupting data or causing operational disruption. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusions, including by computer hackers, nation-state affiliated actors, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. The result of these incidents may include disrupted operations, misstated or unreliable financial data, disrupted market price of our common stock, misappropriation of assets, liability for stolen assets or information, increased cybersecurity protection and insurance cost, regulatory enforcement, litigation and damage to our relationships. These

Table of Contents

risks require continuous and likely increasing attention and other resources from us to, among other actions, identify and quantify these risks, upgrade and expand our technologies, systems and processes to adequately address them and provide periodic training for our employees to assist them in detecting phishing, malware and other schemes. Such attention diverts time and other resources from other activities and there is no assurance that our efforts will be effective. Potential sources for disruption, damage or failure of our information technology systems include, without limitation, computer viruses, security breaches, human error, cyber- attacks, natural disasters and defects in design. Additionally, due to the size and nature of our company, we rely on third-party service providers for many aspects of our business. We can provide no assurance that the networks and systems that our third-party vendors have established or use will be effective. As our reliance on technology has increased, so have the risks posed to both our information systems and those provided by third-party service providers. We have implemented processes, procedures and internal controls to help mitigate cybersecurity risks and cyber intrusions, but these measures, as well as our increased awareness of the nature and extent of a risk of a cyber incident, do not guarantee that our financial results, operations or confidential information will not be negatively impacted by such an incident.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Provisions for credit losses are difficult to estimate.

​

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

​

Table of Contents

On January 1, 2020, the Company adopted ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses, which replaces the “incurred loss” model for recognizing credit losses with an “expected loss” model referred to as the Current Expected Credit Loss (“CECL”) model. Under the CECL model, we are required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is to be based on past events including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. This measurement will take place at the time the financial asset is first added to the balance sheet and updated quarterly thereafter.

​

Risks Related to Our Relationship with Our Manager

​

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

​

We are dependent on Waterfall for our day-to-day management. Our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, who are employed by Waterfall, are dedicated exclusively to our business, and several of Waterfall’s accounting professionals are also dedicated exclusively to our business, and such persons are expected to be dedicated to us. In addition, Waterfall or we may in the future hire additional personnel that may be dedicated to our business. However, other than our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, Waterfall is not obligated under the management agreement to dedicate any of its personnel exclusively to our business, nor is it or its personnel obligated to dedicate any specific portion of its or their time to our business. We will also be responsible for the costs of our own employees. However, with the exception of our subsidiaries, which will employ their own personnel, we do not expect to have our own employees. Accordingly, we believe that our success will depend to a significant extent upon the efforts, experience, diligence, skill and network of business contacts of the executive officers and key personnel of Waterfall. The executive officers and key personnel of Waterfall will evaluate, negotiate, structure, close and monitor our acquisitions of assets, and our success will depend on its continued service. The departure of any of the executive officers or key personnel of Waterfall could have a material adverse effect on our performance. In addition, we offer no assurance that Waterfall will remain our Manager or that we will continue to have access to Waterfall’s principals and professionals. The current term of our management agreement with Waterfall runs through October 31, 2021 and, unless terminated in accordance with its terms, our management agreement will automatically renew for a successive one-year term on each anniversary thereafter. If the management agreement is terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage the Company, we may not be able to execute our business plan.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Table of Contents

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Termination of the management agreement without cause is difficult and costly. Our independent directors will review Waterfall’s performance and the management fees annually and, following the initial term, the management agreement may be terminated annually upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors, or by a vote of the holders of at least a majority of the outstanding shares of the Company common stock (other than shares held by members of our senior management team and affiliates of Waterfall), based upon: (i) Waterfall’s unsatisfactory performance that is materially detrimental to our Company, or (ii) a determination that the management fees or incentive distribution payable to Waterfall are not fair, subject to Waterfall’s right to prevent termination based on unfair fees by accepting a reduction of management fees or incentive distribution agreed to by at least two-thirds of our independent directors. We must provide Waterfall with 180 days prior notice of any such termination. Additionally, upon such a termination by us without cause (or upon termination by Waterfall due to our material breach), the management agreement provides that we will pay Waterfall a termination fee equal to three times the average annual base management fee earned by Waterfall during the prior 24-month period immediately preceding the date of termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter prior to the date of termination, except upon an internalization. Additionally, if the management agreement is terminated under circumstances in which we are obligated to make a termination payment to Waterfall, our operating partnership shall repurchase, concurrently with such termination, the Class A special unit for an amount equal to three times the average annual amount of the incentive distribution paid or payable in respect of the Class A special unit during the 24-month period immediately preceding such termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter before the date of termination. These provisions may increase the cost to our Company of terminating the management agreement and adversely affect our ability to terminate Waterfall without cause.

​

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

​

We may engage in an internalization transaction, become self-managed and, if this were to occur, certain key employees may not become our employees but may instead remain employees of Waterfall or its affiliates. An inability to manage an internalization transaction effectively could thus result in us incurring excess costs and suffering deficiencies in our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting. Such deficiencies could cause us to incur additional costs, and our management’s attention could be diverted from most effectively managing our investments.

Table of Contents

Additionally, if another program sponsored by Waterfall internalizes Waterfall, key personnel of Waterfall, who also are key personnel of the other sponsored program, would become employees of the other program and would no longer be available to us. Any such loss of key personnel could adversely impact our ability to execute certain aspects of our business plan. Furthermore, in the case of any internalization transaction, we expect that we would be required to pay consideration to compensate Waterfall for the internalization in an amount that we will negotiate with Waterfall in good faith and which will require approval of at least a majority of our independent directors. It is possible that such consideration could exceed the amount of the termination fee that would be due to Waterfall if the conditions for terminating the management agreement without cause are satisfied and we elected to terminate the management agreement and payment of such consideration could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

We have authorized Waterfall to follow broad investment guidelines established by our board of directors. Our board of directors periodically reviews our investment guidelines and investment portfolio but does not, and is not required to, review all of our proposed investments. These investment guidelines may be changed from time to time by our board of directors without the approval of our stockholders. To the extent that our board of directors approves material changes to the investment guidelines, we will inform stockholders of such changes through disclosure in our periodic reports and other filings required under the Exchange Act. In addition, in conducting its periodic reviews, our board of directors may rely primarily on information provided to them by Waterfall. Furthermore, Waterfall may use complex strategies, and transactions entered into may be costly, difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our board of directors. Accordingly, Waterfall will have great latitude in determining the types and amounts of target assets it may decide are attractive investments for us, which could result in investment returns that are substantially below expectations or that result in losses, which would materially and adversely affect our business operations and results.

​

Risks Related to Our Residential Mortgage Lending Business

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

In addition, ARMs and RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs are typically subject to lifetime interest rate caps that limit the amount an interest rate can increase through the maturity of the ARMs. However, our borrowings under

Table of Contents

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

​

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

​

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

​

GMFS is an approved Fannie Mae Seller-Servicer, Freddie Mac Seller-Servicer, Ginnie Mae issuer, HUD/ FHA mortgage, USDA approved originator, and VA lender. As an approved seller/servicer, GMFS is required to conduct certain aspects of its operations in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines published by these entities. Failure to maintain GMFS’s status as an approved seller/servicer would mean it would not be able to sell mortgage loans to these entities, could result in it being required to re-purchase loans previously sold to these entities, or could otherwise restrict our business and investment options and could harm our business and expose us to losses or other claims. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or these other entities may, in the future, require GMFS to hold additional capital or pledge additional cash or assets in order to maintain approved seller/servicer status, which, if required, would adversely impact our financial results.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act directed the CFPB to integrate certain mortgage loan disclosures under the TILA and RESPA, and in October 2015, these disclosure rules went into effect for newly originated residential mortgage loans. These rules include consumer disclosure document forms, processes for determining when disclosures must be updated

Table of Contents

and timelines for providing disclosure documents to borrowers. These rules have created the need for substantial system and process changes at GMFS and training for its employees. CFPB further amended disclosure requirements under Regulation Z in 2017 and 2018. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in penalties for disclosure violations under the TILA and RESPA.

​

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

​

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

​

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

Loan modification and refinance programs may adversely affect the performance of residential mortgage loans, Agency RMBS and non-Agency RMBS. Especially with non-Agency RMBS, a significant number of loan modifications with respect to a given security, including those related to principal forgiveness and coupon reduction, could negatively impact the realized yields and cash flows on such security. These loan modification programs, future legislative or regulatory actions, including possible amendments to the bankruptcy laws, which result in the modification of outstanding residential mortgage loans, as well as changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for refinancing mortgage loans with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae, may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, residential mortgage loans, non-Agency RMBS, Agency RMBS and our other target assets that we may purchase.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

Table of Contents

rather than absorbing the default losses. This may reduce the amount of credit support available for the senior classes we may own, thus possibly adversely affecting these securities.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Our MSRs will expose us to significant risks.

​

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac generally require mortgage servicers to be paid a minimum servicing fee that significantly exceeds the amount a servicer would charge in an arm’s-length transaction. Our residential MSRs are recorded at fair value on our balance sheet based upon significant estimates and assumptions, with changes in fair value included in our consolidated results of operations. Such estimates and assumptions would include, without limitation, estimates of future cash flows associated with our residential MSRs based upon assumptions involving interest rates as well as the prepayment rates, delinquencies and foreclosure rates of the underlying serviced mortgage loans.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Furthermore, MSRs are subject to numerous U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations and may be subject to various judicial and administrative decisions imposing various requirements and restrictions on our business. Our failure

Table of Contents

to comply, or the failure of the servicer to comply, with the laws, rules or regulations to which we or the servicer are subject by virtue of ownership of MSRs, whether actual or alleged, could expose us to fines, penalties or potential litigation liabilities, including costs, settlements and judgments, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, consolidated results of operations or cash flows.

​

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

​

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

​

Currently, and in the future, some of the loans we may originate may be insured in part by mortgage insurers or financial guarantors. Mortgage insurance protects the lender or other holder of a loan up to a specified amount, in the event the borrower defaults on the loan. Mortgage insurance is generally obtained only when the principal amount of the loan at the time of origination is greater than 80% of the value of the property (loan-to-value), although it may not always be obtained in these circumstances. Any inability of the mortgage insurers to pay in full the insured portion of the loans that we hold would adversely affect the value of our loans, which could increase our credit risk, reduce our cash flows, or otherwise adversely affect our business.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

The underwriting of newly originated residential mortgage loans is different than the underwriting and investment process related to seasoned mortgage loans and RMBS, which focuses, in part, on performance history. Prior to originating or acquiring residential mortgage loans or other assets, GMFS or other subsidiaries may undertake underwriting and due diligence efforts with respect to various aspects of the loan or asset. When underwriting or conducting due diligence, GMFS or other subsidiaries rely on available resources and data, which may be limited, and on investigations by third parties.

​

The mortgage loan originator may also only conduct due diligence on a sample of a pool of loans or assets it is acquiring and assume that the sample is representative of the entire pool. These underwriting and due diligence efforts may not

Table of Contents

reveal matters that could lead to losses. If the underwriting process is not robust enough or if we do not conduct adequate due diligence, or the scope of the underwriting or due diligence is limited, we may incur losses.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

If Freddie Mac participation in the mortgage market were reduced or eliminated, or its structures were to change, our ability to originate and service loans under the Freddie Mac program could be adversely affected. These developments

Table of Contents

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

​

Risks Related to Our SBA Business

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

​

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Financing and Hedging

​

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

​

We will use prudent leverage to increase potential returns to our stockholders. As of December 31, 2020, our committed and outstanding financing arrangements included:

​

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

​

For further information on these funding sources see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources” included in this annual report on Form 10-K. Over time, as market conditions change, we plan to use these and other borrowings.

​

The return on our assets and cash available for distribution to our stockholders may be reduced to the extent that market conditions prevent us from leveraging our assets or cause the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income that can be derived from the assets acquired. Our financing costs will reduce cash available for distribution to stockholders. We may not be able to meet our financing obligations and, to the extent that we cannot, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to liquidation or sale to satisfy the obligations. A decrease in the value of our assets that are subject to repurchase agreement financing may lead to margin calls that we will have to satisfy. We may not have the funds available to satisfy any such margin calls and may be forced to sell assets at significantly depressed prices due to market conditions or otherwise, which may result in losses. The satisfaction of any such margin calls may reduce cash flow available for distribution to our stockholders. Any reduction in distributions to our stockholders may cause the value of our common stock to decline.

​

We may not be able to successfully complete additional securitization transactions, which could limit potential future sources of financing and could inhibit the growth of our business.

​

We may use our existing credit facilities or repurchase agreements or, if we are successful in entering into definitive documentation in respect of our other potential financing facilities, other borrowings to finance the origination and/or acquisition of SBC loans until a sufficient quantity of eligible assets has been accumulated, at which time we would refinance these short-term facilities or repurchase agreements through the securitization market, which could include the creation of CMBS, collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”), or the private placement of loan participations or other long-term financing. When we employ this strategy, we are subject to the risk that we would not be able to obtain, during the period that our short-term financing arrangements are available, a sufficient amount of eligible assets to maximize the efficiency of a CMBS, CDO or private placement issuance. We are also subject to the risk that we will not able to obtain short-term financing arrangements or will not be able to renew any short-term financing arrangements after they expire should we find it necessary to extend such short-term financing arrangements to allow more time to obtain the necessary eligible assets for a long-term financing.

​

The inability to consummate securitizations of our portfolio to finance our SBC loan and ABS assets on a long-term basis could require us to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at an inopportune time or price, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

​

Uncertainty regarding the expected discontinuance of the London interbank offered rate (“LIBOR”) and transition to alternative reference rates may adversely impact our borrowings and assets.

​

In July 2017, the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates the LIBOR administrator, ICE Benchmark Administration Limited ("IBA"), announced that it would cease to compel banks to participate in settling LIBOR as a benchmark by the end of 2021. Such announcement indicates that market participants cannot rely on LIBOR

Table of Contents

being published after 2021. On December 4, 2020, the IBA published a consultation on its intention to cease the publication of LIBOR. For the most commonly used tenors (overnight and one, three, six and 12 months) of U.S. dollar LIBOR, the IBA is proposing to cease publication immediately after June 30, 2023, anticipating continued rate submissions from panel banks for these tenors of U.S. dollar LIBOR. The IBA's consultation also proposes to cease publication of all other U.S. dollar LIBOR tenors, and of all non-U.S. dollar LIBOR rates, after December 31, 2021.  The FCA and U.S. bank regulators have welcomed the IBA's proposal to continue publishing certain tenors for U.S. dollar LIBOR through June 30, 2023 because it would allow many legacy U.S. dollar LIBOR contracts that lack effective fallback provisions and are difficult to amend to mature before such LIBOR rates experience disruptions. U.S. bank regulators are, however, encouraging banks to cease entering into new financial contracts that use LIBOR as a reference rate as soon as practicable and in any event by December 31, 2021. Given consumer protection, litigation, and reputation risks, U.S. bank regulators believe entering into new financial contracts that use LIBOR as a reference rate after December 31, 2021 would create safety and soundness risks. In addition, they expect new financial contracts to either utilize a reference rate other than LIBOR or have robust fallback language that includes a clearly defined alternative reference rate after LIBOR’s discontinuation. Although the foregoing may provide some sense of timing, there is no assurance that LIBOR, of any particular currency and tenor, will continue to be published or be representative of the underlying market until any particular date, and it appears highly likely that LIBOR will be discontinued or modified after December 31, 2021 or June 30, 2023, depending on the currency and tenor.

​

The Alternative Reference Rates Committee, a group of private-market participants convened by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board and the New York Federal Reserve, has recommended the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”) as a more robust reference rate alternative to U.S. dollar LIBOR. The use of SOFR as a substitute for U.S. dollar LIBOR is voluntary and may not be suitable for all market participants. SOFR is calculated based on overnight transactions under repurchase agreements, backed by Treasury securities. SOFR is observed and backward looking, which stands in contrast with LIBOR under the current methodology, which is an estimated forward-looking rate and relies, to some degree, on the expert judgment of submitting panel members. Given that SOFR is a secured rate backed by government securities, it will be a rate that does not take into account bank credit risk (as is the case with LIBOR). SOFR is therefore likely to be lower than U.S. dollar LIBOR and is less likely to correlate with the funding costs of financial institutions. To approximate economic equivalence to LIBOR, SOFR can be compounded over a relevant term and a spread adjustment may be added.  Market practices related to SOFR calculation conventions continue to develop and may vary, and inconsistent calculation conventions may develop among financial products.

​

Many of our debt and interest rate hedge agreements are linked to U.S. dollar LIBOR. We expect that a significant portion of these financing arrangements and loan assets will not have matured, been prepaid or otherwise terminated prior to the time at which the IBA ceases to publish LIBOR. It is not possible to predict all consequences of the IBA's proposals to cease publishing LIBOR, any related regulatory actions and the expected discontinuance of the use of LIBOR as a reference rate for financial contracts. Some of our debt and loan assets may not include robust fallback language that would facilitate replacing LIBOR with a clearly defined alternative reference rate after LIBOR’s discontinuation, and we may need to amend these before the IBA ceases to publish LIBOR. If such debt or loan assets mature after LIBOR ceases to be published, our counterparties may disagree with us about how to calculate or replace LIBOR.  Even when robust fallback language is included, there can be no assurance that the replacement rate plus any spread adjustment will be economically equivalent to LIBOR, which could result in a lower interest rate being paid to us on such assets. Modifications to any debt, loan assets, interest rate hedging transactions or other contracts to replace LIBOR with an alternative reference rate could result in adverse tax consequences.

​

In addition, any resulting differences in interest rate standards among our assets and our financing arrangements may result in interest rate mismatches between our assets and the borrowings used to fund such assets. Furthermore, the transition away from LIBOR may adversely impact our ability to manage and hedge exposures to fluctuations in interest rates using derivative instruments.  There is no guarantee that a transition from LIBOR to an alternative will not result in financial market disruptions, significant increases in benchmark rates, or borrowing costs to borrowers, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and stock price. While we expect LIBOR to be available in substantially its current form until the end of 2021, if a significant number of panel banks decline to provide LIBOR submissions to the IBA, it is possible that LIBOR will become unrepresentative of the underlying market and subject to increased volatility prior to such date. Should that occur, the risks associated with the transition to alternative reference rates will be accelerated and magnified.

​

Table of Contents

Through certain of our subsidiaries we may engage in securitization transactions relating to mortgage loans, which would expose us to potentially material risks.

​

Through certain of our subsidiaries we may engage in securitization transactions relating to mortgage loans, which generally would require us to prepare marketing and disclosure documentation, including term sheets and prospectuses, which include disclosures regarding the securitization transactions and the assets being securitized. If our marketing and disclosure documentation are alleged or found to contain inaccuracies or omissions, we may be liable under federal and state securities laws (or under other laws) for damages to third parties that invest in these securitization transactions, including in circumstances where we relied on a third party in preparing accurate disclosures, or we may incur other expenses and costs in connection with disputing these allegations or settling claims.

​

In recent years there has also been debate as to whether there are defects in the legal process and legal documents governing transactions in which securitization trusts and other secondary purchasers take legal ownership of mortgage loans and establish their rights as first priority lien holders on underlying mortgaged property. To the extent there are problems with the manner in which title and lien priority rights were established or transferred, securitization transactions that we may sponsor and third-party sponsored securitizations that we hold investments in may experience losses, which could expose us to losses and could damage our ability to engage in future securitization transactions.

​

Our potential securitization activities could expose us to litigation, adversely affecting our business and financial results.

​

Through certain of our subsidiaries we may engage in or participate in securitization transactions relating to mortgage loans. As a result of declining property values, increasing defaults, changes in interest rates, or other factors, the aggregate cash flows from the loans held by any securitization entity that we may sponsor and the securities and other assets held by these entities may be insufficient to repay in full the principal amount of ABS issued by these securitization entities. We do not expect to be directly liable for any of the ABS issued by these entities. Nonetheless, third parties who hold the ABS issued by these entities may try to hold us liable for any losses they experience, including through claims under federal and state securities laws or claims for breaches of representations and warranties we would make in connection with engaging in these securitization transactions.

​

Defending a lawsuit can consume significant resources and may divert management’s attention from our operations. We may be required to establish reserves for potential losses from litigation, which could be material. To the extent we are unsuccessful in our defense of any lawsuit, we could suffer losses, which could be in excess of any reserves established relating to that lawsuit, and these losses could be material.

​

We may be required to repurchase mortgage loans or indemnify investors if we breach representations and warranties, which could harm our earnings.

​

We have sold and, on occasion, consistent with our qualification as a REIT and our desire to avoid being subject to the “prohibited transaction” penalty tax, we may sell some of our loans in the secondary market or as a part of a securitization of a portfolio of our loans. When we sell loans, we are required to make customary representations and warranties about such loans to the loan purchaser. Our mortgage loan sale agreements may require us to repurchase or substitute loans in the event we breach a representation or warranty given to the loan purchaser. In addition, we may be required to repurchase loans as a result of borrower fraud or in the event of early payment default on a mortgage loan. Likewise, we may be required to repurchase or substitute loans if we breach a representation or warranty in connection with our securitizations, if any.

​

The remedies available to a purchaser of mortgage loans are generally broader than those available to us against the originating broker or correspondent. Further, if a purchaser enforces its remedies against us, we may not be able to enforce the remedies we have against the sellers. The repurchased loans typically can only be financed at a steep discount to their repurchase price, if at all. They are also typically sold at a significant discount to the UPB. Significant repurchase activity could harm our cash flow, results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

​

Certain financing arrangements restrict our operations and expose us to additional risk.

​

Our existing financing arrangements, including the Senior Secured Notes, Convertible Notes, and our future financing arrangements are or will be governed by a credit agreement, indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Additionally, any convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have

Table of Contents

rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock. We will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such credit facilities, arrangements or securities.

​

These restrictive covenants and operating restrictions could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, cause us to lose our REIT status, restrict our ability to finance or securitize new originations and acquisitions, force us to liquidate collateral and negatively affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to pay dividends. For further information on these covenants see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources” included in this annual report on Form 10-K.

​

Our securitizations may also reduce and/or restrict our available cash needed to pay dividends to our stockholders in order to satisfy the REIT requirements. Under the terms of the securitization, excess interest collections with respect to the securitized loans are distributed to us as the trust certificate holder once the overcollateralization target is reached and maintained. If the securitized loans experience delinquencies exceeding default triggers specified in the securitizations, the excess interest collections will be paid to the noteholders as additional principal payments on the notes. If excess interest collections are paid to noteholders rather than to us, we will be required to use cash from other sources to pay dividends to our stockholders in order to satisfy the REIT requirements or to fund our ongoing operations.

​

The repurchase agreements that we will use to finance our assets will restrict us from leveraging our assets as fully as desired, and may require us to provide additional collateral.

​

We may use credit facilities together with other borrowings structured as repurchase agreements to finance our assets. If the market value of the assets pledged or sold by us under a repurchase agreement borrowing to a financing institution declines, we will normally be required by the financing institution to pay down a portion of the funds advanced, but we may not have the funds available to do so, which could result in defaults. Repurchase agreements that we may use in the future may also require us to provide additional collateral if the market value of the assets pledged or sold by us to a financing institution declines. Posting additional collateral to support our credit will reduce our liquidity and limit our ability to leverage our assets, which could adversely affect our business. In the event we do not have sufficient liquidity to meet such requirements, financing institutions can accelerate repayment of our indebtedness, increase interest rates, liquidate our collateral or terminate our ability to borrow. Such a situation would likely result in a rapid deterioration of our financial condition and possibly necessitate a filing for bankruptcy protection. For further information on our repurchase agreements see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations —  Liquidity and Capital Resources” included in this annual report on Form 10-K.

​

Further, financial institutions providing the repurchase facilities may require us to maintain a certain amount of cash that is not invested or to set aside non-leveraged assets sufficient to maintain a specified liquidity position that would allow us to satisfy our collateral obligations. As a result, we may not be able to leverage our assets as fully as we would choose, which could reduce our return on equity. If we are unable to meet these collateral obligations, our financial condition could deteriorate rapidly.

​

If a counterparty to our repurchase transactions defaults on its obligation to resell the underlying asset back to us at the end of the transaction term, or if the value of the underlying asset has declined as of the end of that term, or if we default on our obligations under the repurchase agreement, we will incur losses on our repurchase transactions.

​

Under repurchase agreement financings, we generally sell assets to lenders (that is, repurchase agreement counterparties) and receive cash from the lenders. The lenders are obligated to resell the same assets back to us at the end of the term of the transaction, which typically ranges from 30 to 90 days, but which may have terms of up to 364 days or longer. Because the cash we will receive from the lender when it initially sells the assets to the lender is less than the value of those assets (this is referred to as the haircut), if the lender defaults on its obligation to resell the same assets back to us, we would incur a loss on the transaction equal to the amount of the haircut (assuming there was no change in the value of the assets). We would also incur losses on a repurchase transaction if the value of the underlying assets has declined as of the end of the transaction term, as we would have to repurchase the assets for their initial value but would receive assets worth less than that amount. Further, if we default on one of our obligations under a repurchase transaction, the lender will be able to terminate the transaction and cease entering into any other repurchase transactions with us. It is also possible that our repurchase agreements will contain cross-default provisions, so that if a default occurs under any one agreement, the lenders under our other agreements could also declare a default. If a default occurs under any of our repurchase agreements and the lenders terminate one or more of our repurchase agreements, we may need to enter into replacement repurchase agreements with different lenders. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in entering into such replacement

Table of Contents

repurchase agreements on the same terms as the repurchase agreements that were terminated or at all. Any losses we incur on our repurchase transactions could adversely affect our earnings and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

​

Our rights under our repurchase agreements may be subject to the effects of bankruptcy laws in the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of our Company or our lenders under the repurchase agreements, which may allow our lenders to repudiate our repurchase agreements.

​

In the event of insolvency or bankruptcy, repurchase agreements normally qualify for special treatment under the Bankruptcy Code, the effect of which, among other things, would be to allow the lender under the applicable repurchase agreement to avoid the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and to foreclose on the collateral agreement without delay. In the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of a lender during the term of a repurchase agreement, the lender may be permitted, under applicable insolvency laws, to repudiate the contract, and our claim against the lender for damages may be treated simply as an unsecured creditor. In addition, if the lender is a broker or dealer subject to the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, or an insured depository institution subject to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, our ability to exercise our rights to recover our securities under a repurchase agreement or to be compensated for any damages resulting from the lender’s insolvency may be further limited by those statutes. These claims would be subject to significant delay and, if and when received, may be substantially less than the damages we actually incur.

​

The change of control provisions in the Convertible Notes and the Corporate Debt and the related indentures could deter, delay or prevent an otherwise beneficial merger, acquisition, tender offer or other takeover attempt involving our Company.

The change of control provisions in the Convertible Notes and Corporate Debt and the related indentures could make it more difficult or more expensive for a third-party to acquire our Company.  If a merger, acquisition, tender offer or other takeover attempt involving our Company by a third-party constitutes a change of control under the related indentures, we or ReadyCap Holdings, LLC (“ReadyCap Holdings”) may be required to offer to repurchase all of the Convertible Notes and the Corporate Debt. As a result, our obligations under the Convertible Notes and the Corporate Debt could increase the cost of acquiring our Company or otherwise discourage a third party from acquiring our Company.

We may enter into hedging transactions that could expose us to contingent liabilities in the future and adversely impact our financial condition.

​

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

​

Hedging against interest rate exposure may adversely affect our earnings, which could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

​

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

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

​

In general, when we acquire an SBC loan or ABS asset, we may, but are not required to, enter into an interest rate swap agreement or other hedging instrument that effectively fixes our borrowing costs for a period close to the anticipated average life of the fixed-rate portion of the related assets. This strategy is designed to protect us from rising interest rates, because the borrowing costs are fixed for the duration of the fixed-rate portion of the related SBC loan or ABS asset.

​

However, if prepayment rates decrease in a rising interest rate environment, the life of the fixed-rate portion of the related assets could extend beyond the term of the swap agreement or other hedging instrument. This could have a negative impact on our results of operations, as borrowing costs would no longer be fixed after the end of the hedging instrument while the income earned on the SBC loan or ABS asset would remain fixed. This situation may also cause the market value of our SBC loan or ABS asset to decline, with little or no offsetting gain from the related hedging transactions. In extreme situations, we may be forced to sell assets to maintain adequate liquidity, which could cause us to incur losses.

​

In addition, the use of this swap hedging strategy effectively limits increases in our book value in a declining rate environment, due to the effectively fixed nature of our hedged borrowing costs. In an extreme rate decline, prepayment rates on our assets might actually result in certain of our assets being fully paid off while the corresponding swap or other hedge instrument remains outstanding. In such a situation, we may be forced to terminate the swap or other hedge instrument at a level that causes us to incur a loss.

​

Our hedging transactions, which are intended to limit losses, may actually adversely affect our earnings, which could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

​

Our use of derivatives may expose us to counterparty and other risks.

​

We will likely enter into over-the-counter interest rate swap agreements to hedge risks associated with movements in interest rates. Because such interest rate swaps are not cleared through a central counterparty, the counterparty’s performance is not guaranteed by a clearing house. As a result, if a swap counterparty cannot perform under the terms of an interest rate swap, we would not receive payments due under that agreement, we may lose any unrealized gain associated with the interest rate swap and the hedged liability would cease to be hedged by the interest rate swap. We may also be at risk for any collateral we have pledged to secure our obligation under the interest rate swap if the counterparty becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy.

​

The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in its default. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to cover our commitments, if any, at the then current market price. Although generally we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging positions, we may not always be able to dispose of or close out a hedging position without the consent of the hedging counterparty and we may not be able to enter into an offsetting contract in order to cover our risk. We cannot provide any assurances that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and we may be required to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in losses.

​

Derivative instruments are also subject to liquidity risk and may be difficult or impossible to sell, close out or replace quickly and at the price that reflects the fundamental value of the instrument. Although both over-the-counter and exchange-traded markets may experience lack of liquidity, over-the-counter, non-standardized derivative transactions are generally less liquid than exchange-traded instruments.

​

Table of Contents

Furthermore, derivative transactions are subject to increasing statutory and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. Recently, new regulations have been promulgated by U.S. and foreign regulators attempting to strengthen oversight of derivative contracts. Any actions taken by regulators could constrain our strategy and could increase our costs, either of which could materially and adversely impact our operations.

​

In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act requires certain derivatives, including certain interest rate swaps, to be executed on a regulated market and cleared through a central counterparty. Unlike uncleared swaps, the counterparty for the cleared swaps is the clearing house, which reduces counterparty risk. However, cleared swaps require us to appoint clearing brokers and to post margin in accordance with the clearing house’s rules, which has resulted in increased costs for cleared swaps over uncleared swaps. Margin requirements for uncleared swaps have recently been issued by certain regulators, and requirements from other regulators are expected to be issued soon. Starting March 1, 2017, these rules require us to post margin for uncleared swaps with swap dealers. The margin for both cleared and uncleared swaps will generally be limited to cash and certain types of securities. These requirements may increase the costs of hedging and induce us to change or reduce our use of hedging transactions.

​

Regulation as a commodity pool operator could subject us to additional regulation and compliance requirements, which could materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

​

The Dodd-Frank Act extended the reach of commodity regulations for the first time to include not just traditional futures contracts but also derivative contracts referred to as “swaps.” As a consequence of this change, any investment fund that trades in swaps may be considered a “commodity pool,” which would cause its operator to be regulated as a commodity pool operator (“CPO”). Under the new requirements, CPOs must register or file for an exemption from registration with the National Futures Association, the self-regulatory organization for swaps and other financial instruments regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), and become subject to regulation by the CFTC, including with respect to disclosure, recordkeeping and reporting.

​

On December 7, 2012, the CFTC issued a no-action letter that provides mortgage REITs relief from such registration (the “No-Action Letter”), if they meet certain conditions and submit a claim for such no-action relief by email to the CFTC. We believe we will meet the conditions set forth in the No-Action Letter and we have filed our claim with the CFTC to perfect the use of the no-action relief from registration. However, if in the future we do not meet the conditions set forth in the No-Action Letter or the relief provided by the No-Action Letter becomes unavailable for any other reason and we are unable to obtain another exemption from registration, we may be required to reduce or eliminate our use of interest rate swaps or vary the manner in which we deploy interest rate swaps in our business and we or our directors may be required to register with the CFTC as CPOs and our Manager may be required to register as a “commodity trading advisor” with the CFTC, which will require compliance with CFTC rules and subject us, our board of directors and our Manager to regulation by the CFTC. In the event registration for our Company, our directors or our Manager is required but is not obtained, we, our board of directors or our Manager may be subject to fines, penalties and other civil or governmental actions or proceedings, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The costs of compliance with the CFTC regulations, or the changes to our hedging strategy necessary to avoid their application, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

​

If we attempt to qualify for hedge accounting treatment for our derivative instruments, but we fail to qualify, we may suffer losses because losses on the derivatives that we enter into may not be offset by a change in the fair value of the related hedged transaction.

​

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

​

​

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Taxation as a REIT

​

Our failure to qualify as a REIT, or the failure of our predecessor to qualify as a REIT, would subject us to U.S. federal income tax and applicable state and local taxes, which would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

​

We have been organized and operated and intend to continue to operate in a manner that will enable us to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2011. We have not requested and do not intend to request a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), that we qualify as a REIT. The U.S. federal income tax laws governing REITs are complex, and judicial and administrative interpretations of the U.S. federal income tax laws governing REIT qualification are limited. The complexity of these provisions and of applicable Treasury Regulations is greater in the case of a REIT that, like us, holds our assets through a partnership. To qualify as a REIT, we must meet, on an ongoing basis, various tests regarding the nature of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding shares, and the amount of our distributions. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends on our analysis of the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we may not obtain independent appraisals. Moreover, new legislation, court decisions or administrative guidance, in each case possibly with retroactive effect, may make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify as a REIT. In addition, our ability to satisfy the requirements to qualify as a REIT depends in part on the actions of third parties over which we have no control or only limited influence, including in cases where we own an equity interest in an entity that is classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Furthermore, we hold certain assets through our ownership interest in Ready Capital Subsidiary REIT I, LLC, which we refer to as our subsidiary REIT. Our ability to qualify as a REIT is dependent in part on the REIT qualification of our subsidiary REIT, which is required to separately satisfy each of the REIT requirements in order to qualify as a REIT. Thus, while we intend to operate so that we will qualify as a REIT, given the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, no assurance can be given that we will so qualify for any particular year. These considerations also might restrict the types of assets that we can acquire in the future.

​

If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, and do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be required to pay U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income, and distributions to our stockholders would not be deductible by us in determining our taxable income. In such a case, we might need to borrow money or sell assets in order to pay our taxes. Our payment of income tax would decrease the amount of our income available for distribution to our stockholders. Furthermore, if we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our net taxable income to our stockholders. In addition, unless we were eligible for certain statutory relief provisions, we could not re-elect to qualify as a REIT until the fifth calendar year following the year in which we failed to qualify.

​

As further described above, on October 31, 2016, our predecessor entity merged with and into a subsidiary of ZAIS Financial, with ZAIS Financial surviving the merger and changing its name to Sutherland Asset Management Corporation, and, as described above, subsequently changed its name to Ready Capital Corporation. In addition, as further described above, we completed our acquisition of ORM on March 29, 2019. If prior to the ZAIS Financial merger our predecessor (“Pre-Merger Sutherland”) failed to qualify as a REIT, or if prior to our acquisition of ORM, ORM failed to qualify as a REIT, we could fail to qualify as a REIT as a result.  Even if we retained and continue to retain our REIT qualification, if Pre-Merger Sutherland failed to qualify as a REIT for any taxable year prior to the ZAIS Financial merger, or if ORM failed to qualify as a REIT prior to our acquisition of ORM, we would face serious tax consequences that could substantially reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders because (i) we, as successor to Pre-Merger Sutherland in the ZAIS Financial merger and as successor to ORM in the ORM acquisition, generally inherited any corporate income, excise and other tax liabilities of Pre-Merger Sutherland and ORM, respectively; (ii) we would be subject to tax on the built-in gain on each asset of Pre-Merger Sutherland existing at the time of the merger or each asset of ORM at the time of our acquisition of ORM, as applicable; and (iii) we could be required to employ applicable deficiency dividend procedures (which would include the payment of penalties and interest to the IRS) to eliminate any earnings and profits accumulated by Pre-Merger Sutherland or ORM for taxable periods that it did not qualify as a REIT. As a result, any failure by Pre-Merger Sutherland or ORM to qualify as a REIT could impair our ability to expand our business and raise capital, and could materially adversely affect the value of our common stock.

​

Table of Contents

The percentage of our assets represented by TRSs and the amount of our income that we can receive in the form of TRS dividends and interest are subject to statutory limitations that could jeopardize our REIT qualification and could limit our ability to acquire or force us to liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

​

A REIT may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more TRSs. A TRS may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned directly by the parent REIT. In order to treat a subsidiary of the REIT as a TRS, both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. In order to qualify as a REIT, no more than 20% of the value of our gross assets at the end of each calendar quarter may consist of securities of one or more TRSs. A significant portion of our activities are conducted through our TRSs, and we expect that such TRSs will from time to time hold significant assets.

​

We have elected, together with each of ReadyCap Holdings, Ready Capital TRS I, LLC and RC Knight Holdings, LLC, for each such entity to be treated as a TRS, and we may make TRS elections with respect to certain other entities we may form in the future (collectively referred to herein as "our TRSs"). While we intend to manage our affairs so as to satisfy the TRS limitation, there can be no assurance that we will be able to do so in all market circumstances.

​

In order to satisfy the TRS limitation, we have been required to and may in the future be required to acquire assets that we otherwise would not acquire, liquidate or restructure assets that we hold through ReadyCap Holdings or any of our TRSs, or otherwise engage in transactions that we would not otherwise undertake absent the requirements for REIT qualifications. Each of these actions could reduce the distributions available to our stockholders. In addition, we and our subsidiary REIT have made loans to our TRSs that meet the requirements to be treated as qualifying investments of new capital, which is generally treated as a real estate asset under the Code. Because such loans are treated as real estate assets for purposes of the REIT requirements, we do not treat these loans as TRS securities for purposes of the TRS asset limitation, which is consistent with private rulings issued by the IRS. However, no assurance can be provided that the IRS may not successfully assert that such loans should be treated as securities of our TRSs or our subsidiary REIT's TRSs, which could adversely impact our qualification as a REIT. In addition, our TRSs have obtained financing in transactions in which we and our other subsidiaries have provided guaranties and similar credit support. Although we believe that these financings are properly treated as financings of our TRSs for U.S. federal income tax purposes, no assurance can be provided that the IRS would not assert that such financings should be treated as issued by other entities in our structure, which could impact our compliance with the TRS limitation and the other REIT requirements. Moreover, no assurance can be provided that we will be able to successfully manage our asset composition in a manner that causes us to satisfy the TRS limitation each quarter, and our failure to satisfy this limitation could result in our failure to qualify as a REIT.

​

Any distributions we receive from our TRSs are classified as dividend income to the extent of the earnings and profits of the distributing corporation. Any of our TRSs may from time to time need to make such distributions in order to keep the value of our TRSs below 20% of our total assets. However, TRS dividends will generally not constitute qualifying income for purposes of one of the tests we must satisfy to qualify as a REIT, namely, that at least 75% of our gross income must in each taxable year generally be from real estate assets. While we will continue to monitor our compliance with both this income test and the limitation on the percentage of our assets represented by securities of our TRSs, and intend to conduct our affairs so as to comply with both, the two may at times be in conflict with one another. As an example, it is possible that we may wish to distribute a dividend from a TRS in order to reduce the value of our TRSs below the required threshold of our assets, but be unable to do so without violating the requirement that 75% of our gross income in the taxable year be derived from real estate assets. Although there are other measures we can take in such circumstances in order to remain in compliance, there can be no assurance that we will be able to comply with both of these tests in all market conditions.

​

Complying with REIT requirements may force us to liquidate or forego otherwise attractive investments, which could reduce returns on our assets and adversely affect returns to our stockholders.

​

To qualify as a REIT, we must generally ensure that at least 75% of our gross income for each taxable year, excluding certain amounts, is derived from certain real property-related sources, and at least 95% of our gross income for each taxable year, excluding certain amounts, is derived from certain real property-related sources and passive income such as dividends and interest. In addition, we generally must ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter at least 75% of the value of our total assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets, including certain mortgage loans and RMBS. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities and qualifying real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities and qualifying real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any

Table of Contents

one issuer, no more than 20% of the value of our total assets can be represented by stock and securities of one or more TRSs and no more than 25% of the value of our assets may consist of “nonqualified publicly offered REIT debt instruments.” If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any quarter, we must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of such calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate otherwise attractive investments from our portfolio. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders. In addition, 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. The REIT requirements described above may also restrict our ability to sell REIT-qualifying assets, including asset sales made in connection with a disposition of certain segments of our business or in connection with a liquidation of us, without adversely impacting our qualifications as a REIT. Furthermore, we may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution, and may be unable to pursue investments that would be otherwise advantageous to us in order to satisfy the source of income or asset diversification requirements for qualifying as a REIT.

​

In addition, certain assets that we hold or intend to hold, including unsecured loans, loans secured by both real property and personal property where the fair market value of the personal property exceeds 15% of the total fair market value of all of the property securing the loan, and interests in ABS secured by assets other than real property or mortgages on real property or on interests in real property, are not qualified and will not be qualified real estate assets for purposes of the REIT asset tests. Accordingly, our ability to invest in such assets will be limited, and our investment in such assets could cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT if our holdings in such assets do not satisfy such limitations.

​

Distributions from us or gain on the sale of our common stock may be treated as unrelated business taxable income, or “UBTI”, to U.S. tax-exempt holders of common stock.

​

If (i) all or a portion of our assets are subject to the rules relating to taxable mortgage pools, (ii) a tax-exempt U.S. person has incurred debt to purchase or hold our common stock, (iii) we purchase real estate mortgage investment conduit (“REMIC”) residual interests that generate “excess inclusion income,” or (iv) we are a “pension held REIT,” then a portion of the distributions with respect to our common stock and, in the case of a U.S. person described in clause (ii), gains realized on the sale of such common stock by such U.S. person, may be subject to U.S. federal income tax as UBTI under the Code. We have engaged in certain securitization transactions that are treated as taxable mortgage pools for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Although we believe that such transactions are structured in a manner so that they should not cause any portion of the distributions in our shares to be treated as excess inclusion income, no assurance can be provided that the IRS would not assert a contrary position.

​

The REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan and may require us to incur debt, sell assets or take other actions to make such distributions.

​

To qualify as a REIT, we must distribute to our stockholders each calendar year at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (including certain items of non-cash income), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. To the extent that we satisfy the 90% distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on our undistributed income. In addition, we will incur a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than a minimum amount specified under U.S. federal income tax laws. Our current policy is to pay distributions which will allow us to satisfy the requirements to qualify as a REIT and generally not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our undistributed income.

​

Our taxable income may substantially exceed our net income as determined under U.S. GAAP, or differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash may occur. For example, it is likely that we will acquire assets, including RMBS requiring us to accrue original issue discount (“OID”) or recognize market discount income, that generate taxable income in excess of economic income or in advance of the corresponding cash flow from the assets. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the "Tax Act"), we generally will be required to recognize certain amounts in income no later than the time such amounts are reflected on our financial statements.  The application of this rule may require the accrual of income earlier than would be the case under the otherwise applicable tax rules.  Although the precise application of this rule is not entirely clear, final regulations generally exclude, among other items, OID and market discount income from the applicability of this rule.  Also, in certain circumstances our ability to deduct interest expenses for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be limited. We may also acquire distressed debt investments that are

Table of Contents

subsequently modified by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding debt are “significant modifications” under the applicable Treasury Regulations, the modified debt may be considered to have been reissued to us at a gain in a debt-for-debt exchange with the borrower, with gain recognized by us to the extent that the principal amount of the modified debt exceeds our cost of purchasing it prior to modification.  Finally, we may be required under the terms of the indebtedness that we incur to use cash received from interest payments to make principal payments on that indebtedness, with the effect that we will recognize income but will not have a corresponding amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

​

As a result of the foregoing, we may generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year and find it difficult or impossible to meet the REIT distribution requirements in certain circumstances. In such circumstances, we may be required to (i) sell assets in adverse market conditions, (ii) borrow on unfavorable terms, (iii) distribute amounts that would otherwise be used for future investment or used to repay debt, or (iv) make a taxable distribution of shares of common stock as part of a distribution in which stockholders may elect to receive shares of common stock or (subject to a limit measured as a percentage of the total distribution) cash, in order to comply with the REIT distribution requirements. Thus, compliance with the REIT distribution requirements may hinder our ability to grow, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

​

We may be required to report taxable income with respect to certain of our investments in excess of the economic income we ultimately realize from them.

​

We may acquire mortgage loans, RMBS or other debt instruments in the secondary market for less than their face amount. The discount at which such securities 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. Market discount generally accrues on the basis of the constant yield to maturity of the debt instrument based generally on the assumption that all future payments on the debt instrument will be made. Accrued market discount is reported as income when, and to the extent that, any payment of principal of the debt instrument is made. In particular, payments on mortgage loans are ordinarily made monthly, and consequently accrued market discount may have to be included in income each month as if the debt instrument were assured of ultimately being collected in full. If we collect less on a 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 deduction in a subsequent taxable year. In addition, we may acquire distressed debt investments that are subsequently modified by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding debt are “significant modifications” under applicable Treasury Regulations, the modified debt may be considered to have been reissued to us at a gain in a debt-for-debt exchange with the borrower. In that event, we may be required to recognize taxable gain to the extent the principal amount of the modified debt exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified debt, even if the value of the debt or the payment expectations have not changed.

​

Similarly, some of the RMBS that we purchase will likely have been issued with OID. We will generally be required to report such OID based on a constant yield method and income will accrue based on the assumption that all future projected payments due on such MBSs will be made. If such MBSs turn out not to be fully collectible, an offsetting loss deduction will become available only in the later year in which uncollectability is provable. Finally, in the event that any mortgage loans, RMBS or other debt instruments acquired by us are delinquent as to mandatory principal and interest payments, or in the event a borrower with respect to a particular debt instrument acquired by us encounters financial difficulty rendering it unable to pay stated interest as due, we may nonetheless be required to continue to recognize the unpaid interest as taxable income as it accrues, despite doubt as to its ultimate collectability. Similarly, we may be required to accrue interest income with respect to subordinate RMBS at their 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 loss would likely be treated as a capital loss, and the utility of that loss would therefore depend on our having capital gain in that later year or thereafter.

​

We may hold excess MSRs, which means the portion of an MSR that exceeds the arm’s-length fee for services performed by the mortgage servicer. Based on IRS guidance concerning the classification of MSRs, we intend to treat any excess MSRs we acquire as ownership interests in the interest payments made on the underlying 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 OID on the date we acquired such excess MSR. In general, we will be required to accrue OID based on the constant yield to maturity of each excess MSR, and to treat such OID 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 mortgage

Table of Contents

loans underlying the excess MSR. If the mortgage loans underlying an excess MSR prepay at a rate different than that under the prepayment assumption, our recognition of OID 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.

​

The interest apportionment rules may affect our ability to comply with the REIT asset and gross income tests.

​

The interest apportionment rules under Treasury Regulation Section 1.856-5(c) provide that, if a mortgage is secured by both real property and other property, a REIT is required to apportion its annual interest income to the real property security based on a fraction, the numerator of which is the value of the real property securing the loan, determined when the REIT commits to acquire the loan, and the denominator of which is the highest “principal amount” of the loan during the year. If a mortgage is secured by both real property and personal property and the value of the personal property does not exceed 15% of the aggregate value of the property securing the mortgage, the mortgage is treated as secured solely by real property for this purpose. IRS Revenue Procedure 2014-51 interprets the “principal amount” of the loan to be the face amount of the loan, despite the Code’s requirement that taxpayers treat any market discount, which is the difference between the purchase price of the loan and its face amount, for all purposes (other than certain withholding and information reporting purposes) as interest rather than principal.

​

To the extent the face amount of any loan that we hold that is secured by both real property and other property exceeds the value of the real property securing such loan, the interest apportionment rules described above may apply to certain of our loan assets unless the loan is secured solely by real property and personal property and the value of the personal property does not exceed 15% of the value of the property securing the loan. Thus, depending upon the value of the real property securing our mortgage loans and their face amount, and the other sources of our gross income generally, we may fail to meet the 75% REIT gross income test. In addition, although we will endeavor to accurately determine the values of the real property securing our loans at the time we acquire or commit to acquire such loans, such values may not be susceptible to a precise determination and will be determined based on the information available to us at such time. If the IRS were to successfully challenge our valuations of such assets and such revaluations resulted in a higher portion of our interest income being apportioned to property other than real property, we could fail to meet the 75% REIT gross income test. If we do not meet this test, we could potentially lose our REIT qualification or be required to pay a penalty tax to the IRS. Furthermore, prior to 2016, the apportionment rules described above applied to any debt instrument that was secured by real and personal property if the principal amount of the loan exceeded the value of the real property securing the loan. As a result, prior to 2016, these apportionment rules applied to mortgage loans held by us even if the personal property securing the loan did not exceed 15% of the total property securing the loan. We and our predecessor have held significant mortgage loans that are secured by both real property and personal property. If the IRS were to successfully challenge the application of these rules to us, we could fail to meet the 75% REIT gross income test and potentially lose our REIT qualification or be required to pay a penalty tax to the IRS.

​

In addition, the Code provides that a regular or a residual interest in a REMIC is generally treated as a real estate asset for the purposes of the REIT asset tests, and any amount includible in our gross income with respect to such an interest is generally treated as interest on an obligation secured by a mortgage on real property for the purposes of the REIT gross income tests. If, however, less than 95% of the assets of a REMIC in which we hold an interest consists of real estate assets (determined as if we held such assets), we will be treated as holding our proportionate share of the assets of the REMIC for the purpose of the REIT asset tests and receiving directly our proportionate share of the income of the REMIC for the purpose of determining the amount of income from the REMIC that is treated as interest on an obligation secured by a mortgage on real property. In connection with the expanded HARP program, the IRS issued guidance providing that, among other things, if a REIT holds a regular interest in an “eligible REMIC,” or a residual interest in an “eligible REMIC” that informs the REIT that at least 80% of the REMIC’s assets constitute real estate assets, then (i) the REIT may treat 80% of the value of the interest in the REMIC as a real estate asset for the purpose of the REIT asset tests and (ii) the REIT may treat 80% of the gross income received with respect to the interest in the REMIC as interest on an obligation secured by a mortgage on real property for the purpose of the 75% REIT gross income test. For this purpose, a REMIC is an “eligible REMIC” if (i) the REMIC has received a guarantee from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac that will allow the REMIC to make any principal and interest payments on its regular and residual interests and (ii) all of the REMIC’s mortgages and pass-through certificates are secured by interests in single-family dwellings. If we were to acquire an interest in an eligible REMIC less than 95% of the assets of which constitute real estate assets, the IRS guidance described above may generally

Table of Contents

allow us to treat 80% of our interest in such a REMIC as a qualifying real estate asset for the purpose of the REIT asset tests and 80% of the gross income derived from the interest as qualifying income for the purpose of the 75% REIT gross income test. Although the portion of the income from such a REMIC interest that does not qualify for the 75% REIT gross income test would likely be qualifying income for the purpose of the 95% REIT gross income test, the remaining 20% of the REMIC interest generally would not qualify as a real estate asset, which could adversely affect our ability to satisfy the REIT asset tests. Accordingly, owning such a REMIC interest could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

​

Our ownership of and relationship with any TRS which we may form or acquire will be limited, and a failure to comply with the limits would jeopardize our REIT qualification and our transactions with our TRSs may result in the application of a 100% excise tax if such transactions are not conducted on arm’s-length terms.

​

A REIT may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more TRSs. A TRS may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned directly by a REIT. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. Overall, no more than 20% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of stock and securities of one or more TRSs. A domestic TRS will pay U.S. federal, state and local income tax at regular corporate rates on any income that it earns. In addition, the TRS rules impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis.

​

We have elected and will elect to treat certain subsidiaries as TRSs. Any such TRS and any other domestic TRS that we may form would therefore be required to pay U.S. federal, state and local income tax on their taxable income, and their after-tax net income would be available for distribution to us but would not be required to be distributed to us by such TRS. We anticipate that the aggregate value of the TRS stock and securities owned by us will be less than 20% of the value of our total assets (including the TRS stock and securities). Furthermore, we will monitor the value of our investments in our TRSs to ensure compliance with the rule that no more than 20% of the value of our assets may consist of TRS stock and securities (which is applied at the end of each calendar quarter). In addition, we will scrutinize all of our transactions with TRSs to ensure that they are entered into on arm’s-length terms to avoid incurring the 100% excise tax described above. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be able to comply with the TRS limitations or to avoid application of the 100% excise tax discussed above.

​

The ownership limits that apply to REITs, as prescribed by the Code and by our charter, may inhibit market activity in shares of our common stock and restrict our business combination opportunities.

​

In order for us to qualify as a REIT, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding shares of stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities) at any time during the last half of each taxable year after the first year for which we elect to qualify as a REIT. Additionally, at least 100 persons must beneficially own our stock during at least 335 days of a taxable year or during a proportionate part of a taxable year of less than twelve months (other than the first taxable year for which we elect to be taxed as a REIT). Our charter, with certain exceptions, authorizes our directors to take such actions as are necessary or appropriate to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Our charter also provides that, unless exempted by our board of directors, no person may own more than 9.8% in value or in number, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of our common stock, or 9.8% in value or in number, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of all classes and series of our capital stock. Our board of directors may, in its sole discretion, subject to such conditions as it may determine and the receipt of certain representations and undertakings, prospectively or retroactively, waive the ownership limits or establish a different limit on ownership, or excepted holder limit, for a particular stockholder if the stockholder’s ownership in excess of the ownership limits would not result in us being “closely held” under Section 856(h) of the Code or otherwise failing to qualify as a REIT. These ownership limits could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control of us that might involve a premium price for shares of our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

​

Certain financing activities may subject us to U.S. federal income tax and increase the tax liability of our stockholders.

​

We may enter into transactions that could result in us, the operating partnership or a portion of the operating partnership’s assets being treated as a “taxable mortgage pool” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Specifically, we may securitize residential or commercial real estate loans that we originate or acquire and such securitizations, to the extent structured in a manner other than a REMIC, would likely result in us owning interests in a “taxable mortgage pool”. We would be precluded from holding equity interests in such a taxable mortgage pool securitization through the operating partnership. Accordingly, we would likely enter into such transactions through a qualified REIT subsidiary of one or more subsidiary REITs formed by the operating partnership, and will be precluded from selling to outside investors equity interests in such

Table of Contents

securitizations or from selling any debt securities issued in connection with such securitizations that might be considered equity for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We will be taxed at the highest U.S. federal corporate income tax rate on any “excess inclusion income” arising from a taxable mortgage pool that is allocable to the percentage of our shares held in record name by “disqualified organizations,” which are generally certain cooperatives, governmental entities and tax-exempt organizations that are exempt from tax on unrelated business taxable income. To the extent that common stock owned by “disqualified organizations” is held in record name by a broker/dealer or other nominee, the broker/dealer or other nominee would be liable for the U.S. federal corporate income tax on the portion of our excess inclusion income allocable to the common stock held by the broker/dealer or other nominee on behalf of the disqualified organizations. Disqualified organizations may own our stock. Because this tax would be imposed on us, all of our investors, including investors that are not disqualified organizations, will bear a portion of the tax cost associated with the classification of us or a portion of our assets as a taxable mortgage pool. A regulated investment company, or “RIC”, or other pass-through entity owning our common stock in record name will be subject to tax at the highest corporate tax rate on any excess inclusion income allocated to their owners that are disqualified organizations. We have engaged in certain securitization transactions that are treated as taxable mortgage pools for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Although we believe that such transactions are structured in a manner so that they should not cause any portion of the distributions in our shares to be treated as excess inclusion income, no assurance can be provided that the IRS would not assert a contrary position.

​

In addition, if we realize excess inclusion income and allocate it to our stockholders, this income cannot be offset by net operating losses of our stockholders. If the stockholder is a tax-exempt entity and not a disqualified organization, then this income is fully taxable as unrelated business taxable income under Section 512 of the Code. If the stockholder is a non-U.S. person, it would be subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding on this income without reduction or exemption pursuant to any otherwise applicable income tax treaty. If the stockholder is a REIT, a Registered Investment Company, common trust fund or other pass-through entity, our allocable share of its excess inclusion income could be considered excess inclusion income of such entity. Accordingly, such investors should be aware that a portion of our income may be considered excess inclusion income.

​

The tax on prohibited transactions will limit our ability to engage in transactions, including certain methods of securitizing mortgage loans, which would be treated as prohibited transactions for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

​

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 a trade or business by us or by a borrower that has issued a shared appreciation mortgage or similar debt instrument to us. We might be subject to this tax if we were to dispose of or securitize loans, directly or through a subsidiary REIT, in a manner that was treated as a prohibited transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We might also be subject to this tax if we were to sell assets in connection with a disposition of certain segments of our business or in connection with a liquidation of us. The 100% 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 conduct our operations so that any asset that we or a subsidiary REIT owns that could be treated as held for sale to customers in the ordinary course of our business qualifies for certain safe harbor provisions that prevent the application of this prohibited transaction tax. However, no assurance can be provided that such safe harbor provisions will apply. Moreover, as a result of the prohibited transaction tax we may choose not to engage in certain sales of loans at the REIT level, and may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions, even though the sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us. 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, other than property sold through a TRS or property that satisfies the safe harbor described above, will not be treated as property held for sale to customers. As a result, no assurance can be provided that we will not be subject to prohibited transaction tax.

​

Characterization of our repurchase agreements entered into to finance our investments as sales for tax purposes rather than as secured lending transactions would adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

​

We enter into repurchase agreements with counterparties to achieve our desired amount of leverage for the assets in which we invest. Under our repurchase agreements, we generally sell assets to our counterparty to the agreement and receive cash from the counterparty. The counterparty is obligated to resell the assets back to us at the end of the term of the transaction. We believe that for U.S. federal income tax purposes we will be treated as the owner of the assets that are the subject of repurchase agreements and that the repurchase agreements will be treated as secured lending transactions notwithstanding that such agreements may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of

Table of Contents

the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could successfully assert that we did not own these assets during the term of the repurchase agreements, in which case we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

​

The failure of excess MSRs held by us to qualify as real estate assets, or the failure of the income from excess MSRs to qualify as interest from mortgages, could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

​

We may hold excess MSRs. In certain private letter rulings, the IRS ruled that excess MSRs meeting certain requirements would be treated as an interest in mortgages on real property and thus a real estate asset for purposes of the 75% REIT asset test, and interest received by a REIT from such excess MSRs will be considered interest on obligations secured by mortgages on real property for purposes of the 75% REIT gross income test. A private letter ruling may be relied upon only by the taxpayer to whom it is issued, and the IRS may revoke a private letter ruling. Consistent with the analysis adopted by the IRS in such private letter rulings and based on advice of counsel, we intend to treat any excess MSRs that we acquire that meet the requirements provided in the private letter rulings as qualifying assets for purposes of the 75% REIT gross asset test, and we intend to treat income from such excess MSRs as qualifying income for purposes of the 75% and 95% gross income tests. Notwithstanding the IRS’s determination in the private letter rulings described above, it is possible that the IRS could successfully assert that any excess MSRs that we acquire do not qualify for purposes of the 75% REIT asset test and income from such MSRs does not qualify for purposes of the 75% and/or 95% gross income tests, which could cause us to be subject to a penalty tax and could adversely impact our ability to qualify as a REIT.

​

If we were to make a taxable distribution of shares of our stock, stockholders may be required to sell such shares or sell other assets owned by them in order to pay any tax imposed on such distribution.

​

We may be able to distribute taxable dividends that are payable in shares of our stock. If we were to make such a taxable distribution of shares of our stock, stockholders would be required to include the full amount of such distribution as income. As a result, a stockholder may be required to pay tax with respect to such dividends in excess of cash received. Accordingly, stockholders receiving a distribution of our shares may be required to sell shares received in such distribution or may be required to sell other stock or assets owned by them, at a time that may be disadvantageous, in order to satisfy any tax imposed on such distribution. If a stockholder sells the shares it receives as a dividend in order to pay such tax, the sale proceeds may be less than the amount included in income with respect to the dividend. Moreover, in the case of a taxable distribution of shares of our stock with respect to which any withholding tax is imposed on a non-U.S. stockholder, we may have to withhold or dispose of part of the shares in such distribution and use such withheld shares or the proceeds of such disposition to satisfy the withholding tax imposed.

​

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively.

​

The REIT provisions of the Code may limit our ability to hedge our assets and operations. Under these provisions, any income that we generate from transactions intended to hedge our interest rate risks will generally be excluded from gross income for purposes of the 75% and 95% gross income tests if (i) the instrument (A) hedges interest rate risk or foreign currency exposure on liabilities used to carry or acquire real estate assets or (B) hedges risk of currency fluctuations with respect to any item of income or gain that would be qualifying income under the 75% or 95% gross income tests, or (C) hedges an instrument described in clause (A) or (B) for a period following the extinguishment of the liability or the disposition of the asset that was previously hedged by the hedged instrument, and (ii) such instrument is properly identified under applicable Treasury Regulations. Any income from other hedges would generally constitute non-qualifying income for purposes of both the 75% and 95% gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may have to limit our use of hedging techniques that might otherwise be advantageous or implement those hedges through a TRS, which could increase the cost of our hedging activities or result in greater risks associated with interest rate or other changes than we would otherwise incur.

​

Even if we qualify as a REIT, we may face tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

​

Even if we qualify as a REIT, we may be subject to certain U.S. 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 foreclosures, and state or local income, franchise, property and transfer taxes, including mortgage-related taxes. In addition, we intend to hold a significant amount of our assets from time to time in our TRSs each of which pay U.S. federal, state and local income tax on its taxable income, and its after tax net income is available for distribution to us but is not required to be distributed to us by such TRS. In order to meet the REIT qualification requirements, or to avoid the imposition of a 100% tax that applies to certain gains derived by a REIT from sales of inventory or property held primarily for sale to customers

Table of Contents

in the ordinary course of business, we may hold some of our assets through taxable subsidiary corporations, including domestic TRSs. Any taxes paid by such subsidiary corporations would decrease the cash available for distribution to our stockholders. For example, as a result of ReadyCap Holdings’ SBA license, ReadyCap Holdings’ ability to distribute cash and other assets is subject to significant limitations, and as a result, ReadyCap Holdings is required to hold certain assets that would be qualifying real estate assets for purposes of the REIT asset tests, would generate qualifying income for purposes of the REIT 75% income tests, and would not be subject to corporate taxation if held by our operating partnership. Also, we intend that loans that we originate or buy with an intention of selling in a manner that might expose us to the 100% tax on “prohibited transactions” will be originated or bought by a TRS. Furthermore, loans that are to be modified may be held by a TRS on the date of their modification and for a period of time thereafter. Finally, some or all of the real estate properties that we may from time to time acquire by foreclosure or other procedure will likely be held in one or more TRSs. Since our TRSs do not file consolidated returns with one another, any net losses generated by one such entity will not offset net income generated by any other such entity. In addition, the TRS rules impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis. Furthermore, if we acquire appreciated assets from a subchapter C corporation in a transaction in which the adjusted tax basis of the assets in our hands is determined by reference to the adjusted tax basis of the assets in the hands of the C corporation, and if we subsequently dispose of any such assets during the 5-year period following the acquisition of the assets from the C corporation, we will be subject to tax at the highest corporate tax rates on any gain from such assets to the extent of the excess of the fair market value of the assets on the date that they were contributed to us over the basis of such assets on such date, which we refer to as built-in gains. A portion of the assets contributed to Pre-Merger Sutherland in connection with the REIT formation transactions and contributed to ZAIS Financial in connection with its formation may be subject to the built-in gains tax. Although we expect that the built-in gains tax liability arising from any such assets should be de minimis, there is no assurance that this will be the case.

​

Our qualification as a REIT and exemption from U.S. federal income tax with respect to certain assets may be dependent on the accuracy of legal opinions or advice rendered or given, statements by the issuers of assets that we acquire, or information provided by our shareholders or other third parties, and the inaccuracy of any such opinions, advice or statements may adversely affect our REIT qualification and result in significant corporate-level tax.

​

When purchasing securities, we may rely on opinions or advice of counsel for the issuer of such securities, or statements made in related offering documents, for purposes of determining whether such securities represent debt or equity securities for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and also to what extent those securities constitute REIT real estate assets for purposes of the REIT asset tests and produce income which qualifies under the 75% REIT gross income test. In addition, when purchasing the equity tranche of a securitization, we may rely on opinions or advice of counsel regarding the qualification of the securitization for exemption from U.S. corporate income tax and the qualification of interests in such securitization as debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The inaccuracy of any such opinions, advice or statements may adversely affect our REIT qualification and result in significant corporate-level tax.

​

In addition, for purposes of the REIT gross income tests, rental income qualifies as rents from real property only to the extent that we do not directly or constructively own, (i) in the case of any tenant which is a corporation, stock possessing 10% or more of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote, or 10% or more of the total value of shares of all classes of stock of such tenant, or (ii) in the case of any tenant which is not a corporation, an interest of 10% or more in the assets or net profits of such tenant. We monitor the rental income generated by properties owned by us in order to determine if the rent is treated as paid by an entity that is treated as related to us for purposes of these rules. However, the attribution rules that apply for purposes of the above rules are complex. In order to determine whether we are deemed to hold an interest in the tenant under these attribution rules, we are required to rely on information that we obtain from our shareholders and other third parties regarding potential relationships that could cause us to be treated as owning an interest in such tenants. No assurance can be provided that we will have access to all information necessary to make this determination, and as a result no assurance can be provided that the rental income we receive will not be treated as received from related parties under these rules, which could adversely impact our ability to qualify as a REIT.

​

We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could reduce the value of our common stock.

​

At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws or regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be amended, possibly with retroactive effect. We cannot predict when or if any new U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective, and any such law, regulation

Table of Contents

or interpretation may take effect retroactively. We and our stockholders could be adversely affected by any such change in, or any new, U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation.

​

The tax basis that we use to compute taxable income with respect to certain interests in loans that were held by our operating partnership at the time of the REIT formation transaction could be subject to challenge.

​

Prior to the REIT formation transactions, our operating partnership had accounted for its interest in certain SBC securitizations as an interest in a single debt instrument for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In connection with the REIT formation transactions, the predecessor to our operating partnership was treated as terminated for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and our operating partnership was treated as a new partnership that acquired the assets of such predecessor for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Beginning with such transactions, our operating partnership has properly accounted for our interests in these securitizations as interests in the underlying loans for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Since we did not have complete information regarding the tax basis of each of the loans held by our operating partnership at the time of the REIT formation transactions, our computation of taxable income with respect to these interests could be subject to adjustment by the IRS. If any such adjustment would be significant in amount, the resulting redetermination of our gross income for U.S. federal income tax purposes could cause us or Pre-Merger Sutherland to fail to satisfy the REIT gross income tests, which could cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT. In addition, if any such adjustment resulted in an increase to our or Pre-Merger Sutherland's REIT taxable income, we could be required to pay a deficiency dividend in order to maintain our REIT qualification.

​

Potential changes to the U.S. tax laws could adversely impact us.

​

The U.S. federal income tax laws and regulations governing REITs and their stockholders, as well as the administrative interpretations of those laws and regulations, are constantly under review and may be changed at any time, possibly with retroactive effect. No assurance can be given as to whether, when, or in what form, the U.S. federal income tax laws applicable to us and our stockholders may be enacted. Changes to the U.S. federal income tax laws and interpretations of U.S. federal tax laws could adversely affect an investment in our common stock.

​

The enacted Tax Act, which was signed into law on December 22, 2017, significantly changed U.S. federal income tax laws applicable to businesses and their owners, including REITs and their stockholders, and may lessen the relative competitive advantage of operating as a REIT rather than as a C corporation.

​

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure 

​

Conflicts of interest could arise as a result of our REIT structure.

Conflicts of interest could arise in the future as a result of the relationships between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and our operating partnership or any partner thereof, on the other. Our directors and officers have duties to our Company under Maryland law in connection with their management of our Company. At the same time, we have fiduciary duties, as a general partner, to our operating partnership and to the limited partners under Delaware law in connection with the management of our operating partnership. Our duties as a general partner to our operating partnership and our partners may come into conflict with the duties of our directors and officers.

​

Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit changes in control and prevent our stockholders from realizing a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our common stock.

Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law (“MGCL”) may have the effect of deterring a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change in control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of shares of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our common stock, including:

​

Table of Contents

​

​

As permitted by the MGCL, our board of directors has by resolution exempted from the "business combination" provision of the MGC business combinations (1) between us and any other person, provided that such business combination is first approved by our board of directors (including a majority of our directors who are not affiliates or associates of such person) and (2) between us and Apollo and its affiliates and associates and persons acting in concert with any of the foregoing. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of shares of our stock. There can be no assurance that these exemptions will not be amended or eliminated at any time in the future.

​

Our ability to issue additional shares of common and preferred stock may prevent a change in our control.

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

​

Our rights and your rights to take action against our directors and officers are limited, which could limit your recourse in the event of actions not in your best interests.

As permitted by Maryland law, our charter eliminates the liability of our directors and officers to us and you for money damages, except for liability resulting from:

​

​

In addition, our charter authorizes us, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, to obligate our Company, and our bylaws obligate us, to indemnify any present or former director or officer or any individual who, while a director or officer of our Company and at our request, serves or has served another corporation, real estate investment trust, limited liability company, partnership, joint venture, trust, employee benefit plan or other enterprise as a director, officer, member, manager, partner or trustee who is, or is threatened to be, made a party to, or witness in, a proceeding by reason of his or her service in any such capacity from and against any claim or liability to which that individual may become subject or which that individual may incur by reason of such service and to pay or reimburse his or her reasonable expenses in advance of final disposition of a proceeding. Our charter and bylaws also permit us to indemnify and advance expenses to any individual who served a predecessor of our Company in any of the capacities described above and any employee or agent of our Company or a predecessor of our Company.

​

​

Table of Contents

Our amended and restated bylaws designates the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland as the sole and exclusive forum for some litigation, which could limit the ability of stockholders to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with our Company.

​

Unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, or, if that court does not have jurisdiction, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division is the sole and exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of our Company, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of any duty owed by any director or officer or other employee of our Company to our Company or to our stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim against our Company or any director or officer or other employee of our Company arising pursuant to any provision of the MGCL or our charter or bylaws, or (iv) any action asserting a claim against our Company or any director or officer or other employee of our Company that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the provisions described above. This forum selection provision may limit the ability of stockholders of our Company to obtain a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with our Company or our directors, officers, employees, if any, or other stockholders.

​

General Risk Factors

​

Future offerings of debt or equity securities, which may rank senior to our common stock, may adversely affect the market price of the common stock.

​

If we decide to issue additional debt securities in the future, which would rank senior to our common stock, it is likely that they will be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Additionally, any equity securities or convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock and may result in dilution to owners of our common stock. We and, indirectly, our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities. Because our decision to issue debt or equity securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, holders of our common stock will bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting the value of their stock holdings in the Company.

​

We cannot assure you of our ability to pay distributions in the future.

​

To maintain our qualification as a REIT and generally not be subject to U.S. federal income tax, we intend to make regular quarterly distributions to holders of our common stock out of legally available funds. Our current policy is to distribute our net taxable income to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the 90% distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax. We expect to continue our current distribution practices in the future, but our ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors described in this annual report on Form 10-K. All distributions will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our earnings, financial condition, debt covenants, maintenance of our REIT qualification, restrictions on making distributions under Maryland law and other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time. We may not be able to make distributions in the future, and our board of directors may change our distribution policy in the future. We believe that a change in any one of the following factors, among others, could adversely affect our results of operations and impair our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders:

​

​

​

​

​

​

We cannot assure you that we will achieve results that will allow us to make a specified level of cash distributions or year-to-year increases in cash distributions in the future. In addition, some of our distributions may include a return of capital.

​

Table of Contents

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

Our inability to access funding could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and business. We will rely on short-term financing and thus are especially exposed to changes in the availability of financing.

​

We will use short-term borrowings, such as our existing credit facilities and repurchase agreements, to fund the acquisition of our assets, pending our completion of longer-term matched funded financings. Our use of short-term financing exposes us to the risk that our lenders may respond to market conditions by making it more difficult for us to renew or replace on a continuous basis our maturing short-term borrowings. If we are not able to renew our then existing short-term facilities or arrange for new financing on terms acceptable to us, or if we default on our covenants or are otherwise unable to access funds under these types of financing, we may have to curtail our asset acquisition and origination activities and/or dispose of assets.

​

Our ability to fund our target asset originations and acquisitions may be impacted by our ability to secure further such borrowings as well as securitizations, term financings and derivative contracts on acceptable terms. Because repurchase agreements and warehouse facilities are short-term commitments of capital, lenders may respond to market conditions making it more difficult for us to renew or replace on a continuous basis our maturing short-term borrowings. If we are not able to renew our then existing facilities or arrange for new financing on terms acceptable to us, or if we default on our covenants or are otherwise unable to access funds under our financing facilities, we may have to curtail our origination and asset acquisition activities and/or dispose of assets.

​

Table of Contents

It is possible that the lenders that will provide us with financing could experience changes in their ability to advance funds to us, independent of our performance or the performance of our portfolio of assets. Further, if many of our potential lenders are unwilling or unable to provide us with financing, we could be forced to sell our assets at an inopportune time when prices are depressed. In addition, if the regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders change, they may be required to significantly increase the cost of the financing that they provide to us. Our lenders also may revise their eligibility requirements for the types of assets they are willing to finance or the terms of such financings, based on, among other factors, the regulatory environment and their management of perceived risk, particularly with respect to assignee liability. Moreover, the amount of financing we receive under our short-term borrowing arrangements will be directly related to the lenders’ valuation of our target assets that cover the outstanding borrowings.

​

An increase in our borrowing costs relative to the interest we receive on our leveraged assets may adversely affect our profitability and our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

​

As our financings mature, we will be required either to enter into new borrowings or to sell certain of our assets. An increase in short-term interest rates at the time that we seek to enter into new borrowings would reduce the spread between the returns on our assets and the cost of our borrowings. This would adversely affect the returns on our assets, which might reduce earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

​

​

​

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

​

None.

​

Item 2. Properties

​

Our principal executive offices are located at 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 50^th Floor, New York, New York 10020, and our telephone number is (212) 257-4600. We also use the offices of ReadyCap Lending located at 200 Connell Drive, Suite 4000, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, 07922; ReadyCap Commercial, LLC, located at 1320 Greenway Drive, Suite 560, Irving, Texas, 75038; and Knight Capital LLC, located at 110 Southeast 6^th Street, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. We also use the offices of GMFS located at 7389 Florida Blvd, Suite 200A, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70806 for our residential mortgage banking operations. GMFS also has various branch locations located primarily throughout the southeastern United States.

​

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

​

From time to time, the Company may be involved in various claims and legal actions in the ordinary course of business.

​

On January 7, 2021, Shiva Stein, a purported shareholder of Anworth, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, styled Shiva Stein v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00122 (the “Stein Action”). The Stein Action was filed against Anworth and the Anworth Board. The complaint in the Stein Action asserts that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed on January 4, 2021 in connection with the Merger (the “Initial S-4 Filing”) contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning financial projections and financial analyses in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Stein Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, compensatory damages against the defendants, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

​

On January 12, 2021, Giuseppe Alescio, a purported shareholder of Anworth, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled Giuseppe Alescio v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00258 (the “Alescio Action”). The Alescio Action was filed against Anworth, the Anworth Board, Ready Capital, and Merger Sub. The complaint in the Alescio Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing omitted material information concerning financial forecasts and financial analyses in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Alescio Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, the filing of an amendment to the registration statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

Table of Contents

On January 19, 2021, Joseph Sheridan, a purported shareholder of Anworth, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled Joseph Sheridan v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00465 (the “Sheridan Action”). The Sheridan Action was filed against Anworth, the Anworth Board, Ready Capital, and Merger Sub. The complaint in the Sheridan Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the sales process, financial projections, and financial analyses in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Sheridan Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

​

On January 20, 2021, Ken Bishop, a purported shareholder of Anworth, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, styled Ken Bishop v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00331 (the “Bishop Action”). The Bishop Action was filed against Anworth and the Anworth Board. The complaint in the Bishop Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning financial projections, financial analyses, the sales process and potential conflicts of interest involving Anworth’s financial advisor, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (“Credit Suisse”), in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Bishop Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

​

On January 21, 2021, Samuel Carlisle, a purported shareholder of Anworth, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, styled Samuel Carlisle v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00566 (the “Carlisle Action”). The Carlisle Action was filed against Anworth and the Anworth Board. The complaint in the Carlisle Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing omitted or misrepresented material information concerning financial projections, potential conflicts of interest involving Credit Suisse, and the background of the Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Carlisle Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

​

On January 26, 2021, Reginald Padilla, a purported shareholder of Anworth, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, styled Reginald Padilla v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00702 (the “Padilla Action”). The Padilla Action was filed against Anworth and the Anworth Board. The complaint in the Padilla Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing was materially deficient and misleading in regards to financial projections, potential conflicts of interest involving Credit Suisse, and the background of the Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Padilla Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, the filing of an amendment to the registration statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

​

On February 1, 2021, Diane Antasek, as Trustee for The Diane R. Antasek Trust Agreement, April 8, 1997, and Ronald Antasek, as Trustee for the Ronald J. Antasek Sr. Trust Agreement, April 8, 1997, purported shareholders of Anworth, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, styled Antasek et al. v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00917 (the “Antasek Action”). The Antasek Action was filed against Anworth and the Anworth Board. The complaint in the Antasek Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing was materially deficient in regards to potential conflicts of interest involving Credit Suisse, financial projections and financial valuation analyses in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and that the Anworth Board violated their fiduciary duty as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price. The Antasek Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, an order directing the Anworth Board to exercise their fiduciary duties to commence a sale process that is reasonably designed to secure the best possible consideration for Anworth and obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of Anworth and its stockholders, an award of damages sustained, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

​

Table of Contents

On February 9, 2021, Sean McGillivray, a purported shareholder of Ready, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled McGillivray v. Ready Capital Corporation, et al., No. 1:21-cv-01152 (the “McGillivray Action”).  The McGillivray Action was filed against Ready and the Ready Board.  The complaint in the McGillivray Action asserts that the Form S-4/A Registration Statement filed on February 5, 2021 contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning financial projections and financial analyses in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The McGillivray Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, compensatory damages against the defendants, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees

​

On February 25, 2021, Adam Franchi, a purported shareholder of Anworth, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, styled Franchi v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 2:21-cv-01782 (the “Franchi Action”).  The Franchi Action was filed against Anworth and the Anworth Board.  The complaint in the Franchi Action asserts that the Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement filed on February 9, 2021 contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning financial projections, financial analyses, the sales process and potential conflicts of interest involving Credit Suisse, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Franchi Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

​

On March 1, 2021, Terrance Brodt, a purported shareholder of Anworth, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled Brodt v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00981 (the “Brodt Action” and collectively with the Stein Action, Alescio Action, Sheridan Action, Bishop Action, Carlisle Action, the Padilla Action, the Antasek Action, the McGillivray Action, and the Franchi Action, the “Actions”).  The Brodt Action was filed against Anworth, the Anworth Board, Ready and Merger Sub.  The complaint in the Brodt Action asserts that the Form 424B3 filed on February 9, 2021 contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning financial projections, financial analyses, and potential conflicts of interest involving Credit Suisse, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Franchi Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

​

Anworth and Ready Capital intend to vigorously defend against the Actions.

​

​

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

​

Not applicable.

​

PART II

​

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

​

Market Information

Our common stock is listed for trading on the NYSE under the symbol “RC”.

​

Holders

As of March 12, 2021, we had 531 registered holders of our common stock. The holders of record include Cede & Co., which holds shares as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, which itself holds shares on behalf of the beneficial owners of our common stock. Such information was obtained through our registrar and transfer agent.

​

​

Table of Contents

Dividends

We have elected to be taxed as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2013. U.S. federal income tax law requires that a REIT distribute annually at least 90% of its REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gains and determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction, and that it pay tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that it annually distributes less than 100% of its net taxable income. Our current policy is to pay distributions, which will allow us to satisfy the requirements to qualify as a REIT and generally not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our undistributed income. Although we may borrow funds to make distributions, cash for such distributions is expected to be largely generated from our consolidated results of operations. Dividends are declared and paid at the discretion of our board of directors and depend on cash available for distribution, financial condition, our ability to maintain our qualification as a REIT, and such other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. See Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” and Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations,” of this annual report on Form 10-K, for information regarding the sources of funds used for dividends and for a discussion of factors, if any, which may adversely affect our ability to pay dividends.

​

Stockholder Return Performance

On November 1, 2016, we began trading on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “SLD”. On September 26, 2018, Sutherland Asset Management Corporation filed Articles of Amendment to its charter (the “Articles of Amendment”) with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation of Maryland, to change its name to Ready Capital Corporation (the “Company” or “Ready Capital” and together with its subsidiaries “we”, “us” and “our”), a Maryland corporation. In addition, the Company amended and restated its bylaws and the second amended and restated agreement of limited partnership, effective September 26, 2018, each solely the reflect the name change. In connection with the name change, the Company’s trading symbol on the New York Stock Exchange changed from “SLD” to “RC” for shares of the Company’s common stock.

​

The following graph is a comparison of the cumulative total stockholder return on our shares of common stock, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (the “S&P 500 Index”) and a Competitor Composite Average, a peer group index from October 31, 2016 to December 31, 2020.

​

The following table presents the total return performance of our common stock during the two months ended December 31, 2016 and each of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017 through 2020, reflecting the post-merger prices of our common stock. Prior to the completion of our merger with ZAIS Financial, shares of common stock of ZAIS Financial traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "ZFC".  Prior to and as a condition to the merger, ZAIS Financial disposed of its seasoned re-performing mortgage loan portfolio, such that upon the completion of the merger, ZAIS Financial’s assets largely consisted of its GMFS origination subsidiary, cash, conduit loans and RMBS.  As a result, ZAIS Financial's business and financial results prior to the merger and during the period covered by the below table were significantly different from our business following the closing of the merger and the total return performance before and after the merger may not be comparable. The stock performance graph and table below shall not be deemed, under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, to be (i) “soliciting material” or “filed” or (ii) incorporated by reference by any general statement into any filing made by the Company with the SEC, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates such stock performance graph and table by reference.

​

The graph assumes that $100 was invested on October 31, 2016 in shares of common stock of Ready Capital Corporation (previously Sutherland Asset Management Corporation), the S&P 500 Index, and  each of the Companies shares of common stock included in the Competitor Composite Average and that all dividends were reinvested without the payment of any commissions. There can be no assurance that the performance of our common stock will continue in line with the same or similar trends depicted in the graph below.

Table of Contents

​

​

^*The Competitor Composite Average is a measure of the total return performance of mortgage REIT competitors based on actual share prices of the following companies: Blackstone Mortgage Trust Inc. (BXMT), Starwood Property Trust, Inc. (STWD), Ares Commercial Real Estate Corporation (ACRE), Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance Inc. (ARI), Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. (ABR), and Ladder Capital Corporation (LADR).

(1) Dividend reinvestment is assumed

​

Securities Authorized For Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

The information required by this item is set forth under Item 12 of Part III of this annual report on Form 10-K and is incorporated herein by reference.

​

Recent Sales of Unregistered Equity Securities; Use of Proceeds from Registered Securities

None.

​

Recent Purchases of Equity Securities

The table below presents purchases of common stock made by the Company during the fourth quarter of 2020.

​

​

​

Item 6.  Selected Financial Data

​

Selected Consolidated Balance Sheet data as of and for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 and Consolidated Statements of Income data for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018 are derived from our audited

Table of Contents

consolidated financial statements appearing in this annual report on Form 10-K. Remaining selected financial data is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not appearing elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K. This information should be read in conjunction with Item 1, “Business,” Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” included in this annual report on Form 10-K.

​

​