Franklin BSP Realty Trust, Inc. 10-K

Item 1A. Risk Factors Risks Related to an Investment in Franklin BSP Realty Trust, Inc. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to adversely impact our business and the business of many of our borrowers. The COVID-19 pandemic has had, and another pandemic or public health crisis in the future could have, repercussions across domestic and global economies and financial markets. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in many governmental authorities, including state and local governments in regions in which our borrowers own properties, reacting by instituting government restrictions, border closings, quarantines, “shelter-in-place” orders and “social distancing” guidelines which forced many of our borrowers to suspend or significantly restrict their business activities. The recent resurgences driven by variants, such as Delta and Omicron, have resulted in some of these restrictions, which had been lifted, being reimposed. The economic consequences of the pandemic and government and individual responses to it resulted challenging operating conditions for many businesses, particularly in the retail (including restaurants) and hospitality sectors. 5 Table of Contents The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected our business in a number of respects, including: • at the onset of the pandemic in March and April of 2020, the financial markets for the assets we then held in our real estate securities portfolio were significantly disrupted, resulting in significant decreases in market values for these assets and significant market volatility. This resulted in margin calls from our lenders, which we satisfied, but similar disruptions in the future could result in additional margin calls, including with respect to the assets we acquired in the Capstead merger, which, if not satisfied, could result in the liquidation of some of our assets at significant losses. • declines in the value of commercial real estate generally, and significant declines in certain assets classes, including office, hospitality and retail, which negatively impacted the value of our commercial mortgage loan portfolio, and could continue to negatively impact the value in the future, potentially materially. • adverse impacts on the financial stability of many of our borrowers, which has and will continue to increase the prospects of borrower delinquencies, defaults, or requests for loan modifications. • periodic increases in the cost and decreases in the availability of debt capital, including as a result of dislocations in the commercial mortgage-backed securities market, and as a result of lenders permitting significantly lower advance rates on our repurchase agreements. • increases in the risk that we may not meet certain interest coverage tests, over-collateralization coverage tests or other tests related to our securitized debt that could result in a change in the priority of distributions, which could result in the reduction or elimination of distributions to the subordinate debt and equity tranches we own until the tests have been met or certain senior classes of securities have been paid in full. Accordingly, we may experience a reduction in our cash flow from those interests which may adversely affect our liquidity and therefore our ability to fund our operations or address maturing liabilities on a timely basis. • periodic declines in business activity which if continued will result in a decline in demand for mortgage financing, which could adversely affect our ability to make new investments or to redeploy the proceeds from repayments of our existing investments. The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic impacts our or our borrowers’ operations will depend on future developments which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, including the scope, severity and duration of the pandemic, including any resurgences due to variants, such as the Delta and Omicron variants, the effectiveness of vaccines against variants such as the Delta and Omicron variants, the speed of vaccine (including booster) distribution, treatment developments and the direct and indirect economic effects of the pandemic and containment measures. The inability of our borrowers to meet their loan obligations and/or borrowers filing for bankruptcy protection would reduce our cash flows, which would impact our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. The rapid development and fluidity of this situation precludes any prediction as to the full adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 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. We may be unable to maintain or increase cash distributions over time, or may decide to reduce the amount of distributions for business reasons. There are many factors that can affect the amount and timing of cash distributions to stockholders. The amount of cash available for distributions is affected by many factors, such as the cash provided by the Company's investments and obligations to repay indebtedness as well as many other variables. There is no assurance that the Company will be able to pay or maintain the current level of distributions or that distributions will increase over time. In certain prior periods, distributions have been in excess of cash flows from operations. Distributions in excess of earnings will decrease the book value per share of common stock. The Company cannot give any assurance that returns from the investments will be sufficient to maintain or increase cash available for distributions to stockholders. Actual results may differ significantly from the assumptions used by the board of directors in establishing the distribution rate to stockholders. The Company may not have sufficient cash from operations to make a distribution required to qualify for or maintain our REIT status, which may materially adversely affect the value of our securities. 6 Table of Contents Because we have a large number of stockholders subject to lock-up restrictions which expire six months after the effective time of the merger, there may be significant pent-up demand to sell shares of our common stock once applicable lock-up restrictions expire. Significant sales of shares of our common stock, or the perception that significant sales of such shares could occur, may adversely impact the price of shares of our common stock. Pursuant to certain lock-up agreements and the restructuring of our equity prior to the effective time of the merger with Capstead, approximately 94% of the shares of our common stock (including shares of common stock underlying preferred shares that will automatically convert to common stock) which were outstanding prior to the effective time of the merger are prohibited from being publicly traded for six months following the merger (i.e., until April 19, 2022). Prior to its listing in connection with the closing of the merger on October 19, 2021, our common stock had never been listed on any national securities exchange and the ability of stockholders to liquidate their investments was limited. As a result, there may be significant pent-up demand to sell shares of our common stock once the lock-up restrictions referenced above expire. A large volume of sales of shares of our common stock could decrease the prevailing market price of shares of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of equity securities in the future. Even if actual sales volumes are not elevated, the mere perception of the possibility of these sales could depress the market price of shares of our common stock and have a negative effect on our ability to raise capital in the future. Our business could suffer in the event our Advisor or any other party that provides us with services essential to our operations experiences system failures or cyber-incidents or a deficiency in cybersecurity. Despite system redundancy, the implementation of security measures and the existence of a disaster recovery plan for the internal information technology systems of our Advisor and other parties that provide us with services essential to our operations, these systems are vulnerable to damage from any number of sources, including computer viruses, unauthorized access, energy blackouts, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication failures. Any system failure or accident that causes interruptions in our operations could result in a material disruption to our business. A cyber-incident is considered to be any adverse event that threatens the confidentiality, integrity or availability of information resources. More specifically, a cyber-incident is an intentional attack or an unintentional event that can result in third parties gaining unauthorized access to systems to disrupt operations, corrupt data or steal confidential information. As reliance on technology in our industry has increased, so have the risks posed to the systems of our Advisor and other parties that provide us with services essential to our operations, both internal and outsourced. In addition, the risk of a cyber-incident, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Even the most well protected information, networks, systems and facilities remain potentially vulnerable because the techniques used in such attempted attacks and intrusions evolve and generally are not recognized until launched against a target, and in some cases are designed not to be detected and, in fact, may not be detected. The remediation costs and lost revenues experienced by a victim of a cyber-incident may be significant and significant resources may be required to repair system damage, protect against the threat of future security breaches or to alleviate problems, including reputational harm, loss of revenues and litigation, caused by any breaches. Although the Advisor and other parties that provide us with services essential to our operations intend to continue to implement industry-standard security measures, there can be no assurance that those measures will be sufficient, and any material adverse effect experienced by the Advisor and other parties that provide us with services essential to our operations could, in turn, have an adverse impact on us. 7 Table of Contents If we are unable to implement and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting in the future, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and the market price of our common stock may be negatively affected. As a newly-listed public company, beginning with the 2022 fiscal year, our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to formally attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting on an annual basis. The process of designing, implementing and testing the internal controls over financial reporting required to comply with this obligation is time consuming, costly and complicated. If we identify material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting, if we are unable to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner or to assert that our internal controls over financial reporting are effective or if the independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an opinion as to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and the market price of our common stock could be negatively affected. We could also become subject to investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources. Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest The Advisor faces conflicts of interest relating to purchasing commercial real estate-related investments, and such conflicts may not be resolved in our favor, which could adversely affect our investment opportunities. We rely on the Advisor and the executive officers and other key real estate professionals at our Advisor to identify suitable investment opportunities for us. Although there are restrictions in the Advisory Agreement we have entered into with the Advisor with respect to the Advisor’s ability to manage another REIT that competes with us, or to provide any services related to fixed-rate conduit lending to another person, the Advisor and its employees are not otherwise restricted from engaging in investment and investment management activities unrelated to us and do engage in these activities. Some investment opportunities that are suitable for us may also be suitable for other investment vehicles managed by the Advisor or its affiliates. Thus, the executive officers and real estate professionals of the Advisor could direct attractive investment opportunities to other entities or investors. In addition, we have any may in the future engage in transactions with our Advisor or affiliates of our Advisor and these transactions may not be on terms as favorable as transactions with third parties. Such events could result in us investing in assets that provide less attractive returns, which may reduce our ability to make distributions. The Advisor and its employees face competing demands relating to their time, and this may cause our operating results to suffer. The Advisor and its employees are engaged in investment and investment management activities unrelated to us. Because these persons have competing demands on their time and resources, they may have conflicts of interest in allocating their time between our business and these other activities. If this occurs, the returns on our investments may suffer. Risks Related to Our Corporate Structure The limit on the number of shares a person may own may discourage a takeover that could otherwise result in a premium price to our stockholders. The Company's charter, with certain exceptions, authorizes the board of directors to take such actions as are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Unless exempted by the board of directors, no person or entity may own more than 7.9% in value of the aggregate of our outstanding shares of stock or more than 7.9% (in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of any class or series of shares of our stock determined after applying certain rules of attribution. This restriction may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us, including an extraordinary transaction (such as a merger, tender offer or sale of all or substantially all our assets) that might provide a premium price for holders of our common stock. Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit a change in control of our Company. Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law (“MGCL”) may have the effect of inhibiting 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 such shares, including: • “business combination” provisions that, subject to limitations, prohibit certain business combinations between us and an “interested stockholder” (defined generally as any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of our then outstanding voting power of our shares or an affiliate or associate of ours who, at any time within the two-year period prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of our then outstanding voting shares) or an affiliate thereof for five years after the most recent date on which the stockholder becomes an interested stockholder, and thereafter imposes special appraisal rights and special stockholder voting requirements on these combinations; and 8 Table of Contents • “control share” provisions that provide that “control shares” of our company (defined as shares which, when aggregated with other shares controlled by the stockholder, entitle the stockholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a “control share acquisition” (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of ownership or control of “control shares”) have no voting rights except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding all interested shares. Pursuant to the MGCL, our board of directors has exempted any business combination involving our Advisor or any affiliate of our Advisor. Consequently, the five-year prohibition and the super-majority vote requirements will not apply to business combinations between us and our Advisor or any affiliate of our Advisor. In addition, the Company's bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share provisions any and all acquisitions of our stock by any person. There can be no assurance that this provision will not be amended or eliminated at any time in the future. In addition, the “unsolicited takeover” provisions of Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL permit the Board, without shareholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in the charter or bylaws, to implement certain takeover defenses, including adopting a classified board or increasing the vote required to remove a director. Such takeover defenses may have the effect of inhibiting a third-party from making an acquisition proposal for us or of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us under the circumstances that otherwise could provide our common stockholders with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-current market price. The value of our common stock may be reduced if we are required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. We are not registered, and do not intend to register ourselves, our operating partnership or any of our subsidiaries, as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. If we become obligated to register ourselves, our operating partnership or any of our subsidiaries as an investment company, the registered entity would have to comply with a variety of substantive requirements under the Investment Company Act imposing, among other things, limitations on capital structure and restrictions on specified investments. Although we monitor the portfolio of the Company, the operating partnership and its subsidiaries periodically and prior to each acquisition and disposition, any of these entities may not be able to maintain an exclusion from the definition of investment company. If the Company, the operating partnership or any subsidiary is required to register as an investment company but fails to do so, the unregistered entity would be prohibited from engaging in our business, and criminal and civil actions could be brought against such entity. In addition, the contracts of such entity would be unenforceable unless a court required enforcement, and a court could appoint a receiver to take control of the entity and liquidate its business. Risks Related to Our Financing Strategy The Company uses leverage in connection with our investments, which increases the risk of loss associated with our investments. We finance the origination and acquisition of a portion of our investments with repurchase agreements, collateralized loan obligations ("CLO") and other borrowings. Although the use of leverage may enhance returns and increase the number of investments that we can make, it may also substantially increase the risk of loss. Our ability to execute this strategy depends on various conditions in the financing markets that are beyond our control, including liquidity and credit spreads. We may be unable to obtain additional financing on favorable terms or, with respect to our debt and other investments, on terms that parallel the maturities of the debt originated or other investments acquired, if we are able to obtain additional financing at all. If our strategy is not viable, we will have to find alternative forms of long-term financing for our assets, as secured revolving credit facilities and repurchase facilities may not accommodate long-term financing. This could subject us to more restrictive recourse borrowings and the risk that debt service on less efficient forms of financing would require a larger portion of our cash flows, thereby reducing cash available for distribution, for our operations and for future business opportunities. If alternative financing is not available, we may have to liquidate assets at unfavorable prices to pay off such financing or pay significant fees to extend our financing arrangements. The return on our investments and cash available for distribution may be reduced to the extent that changes in market conditions cause the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income that we can derive from the assets we originate or acquire. 9 Table of Contents Lenders may require us to enter into restrictive covenants relating to our operations, which could limit our ability to make distributions. When providing financing, a lender may impose restrictions on us that affect our distribution and operating policies, and our ability to incur additional borrowings. Financing agreements that we may enter into may contain covenants that limit our ability to further incur borrowings, restrict distributions or that prohibit us from discontinuing insurance coverage or replacing our Advisor. Certain limitations would decrease our operating flexibility and our ability to achieve our operating objectives, including making distributions. In a period of rising interest rates, our interest expense could increase while the interest we earn on our fixed-rate assets would not change, which would adversely affect our profitability. Our operating results depend in large part on differences between the income from our assets, reduced by any credit losses and financing costs. Income from our assets may 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 the market value of our assets. Interest rate fluctuations resulting in our interest expense exceeding the income from our assets would result in operating losses for us and may limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. In addition, if we need to repay existing borrowings during periods of rising interest rates, we could be required to liquidate one or more of our investments at times that may not permit realization of the maximum return on those investments, which would adversely affect our profitability. We may not be able to access financing sources on attractive terms, if at all, which could dilute our existing stockholders and adversely affect our ability to grow our business. Our ability to fund our loans and investments may be impacted by our ability to secure bank credit facilities (including term loans and revolving facilities), warehouse facilities and structured financing arrangements, public and private debt issuances (including through securitizations) and derivative instruments, in addition to transaction or asset specific funding arrangements and additional repurchase agreements on acceptable terms. We may also rely on short-term financing that would be especially exposed to changes in availability. Our access to sources of financing will depend upon a number of factors, over which we have little or no control, including: • general economic or market conditions; the market’s view of the quality of our assets; • the market’s perception of our growth potential; • our current and potential • future earnings and cash distributions; and • the market price of the shares of our common stock and preferred stock. We may need to periodically access the capital markets to, among other things, raise cash to fund new loans and investments. Unfavorable economic conditions, such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, or capital market conditions may increase our funding costs, limit our access to the capital markets or could result in a decision by our potential lenders not to extend credit. An inability to successfully access the capital markets could limit our ability to grow our business and fully execute our business strategy and could decrease our earnings and liquidity. In addition, any dislocation or weakness in the capital and credit markets could adversely affect our lenders and could cause one or more of our lenders to be unwilling or unable to provide us with financing or to increase the costs of that financing. In addition, as regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders are increased, they may be required to limit, or increase the cost of, financing they provide to us. In general, this could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity or require us to sell assets at an inopportune time or price. We cannot make assurances that we will be able to obtain any additional financing on favorable terms or at all. 10 Table of Contents We use short-term borrowings, such as credit facilities and repurchase agreements to finance our investments, which require us to provide additional collateral in the event the lender determines there is a decrease in the fair value of our collateral, and these calls for collateral could significantly impact our liquidity position. We use short-term borrowing through repurchase agreements, credit facilities and other arrangements that put our assets and financial condition at risk. We may need to use such short-term borrowings for extended periods of time to the extent we are unable to access long-term financing. Repurchase agreements economically resemble short-term, variable-rate financing and usually require the maintenance of specific loan-to-collateral value ratios. If the market value of the assets subject to a repurchase agreement decline, we may be required to provide additional collateral or make cash payments to maintain the loan-to-collateral value ratio. If we are unable to provide such collateral or cash repayments, the lender may accelerate the loan or we would be required to liquidate the collateral. In a weakening economic environment, or in an environment of widening credit spreads, we would generally expect the value of the commercial real estate debt or securities that serve as collateral for our short-term borrowings to decline, and in such a scenario, it is likely that the terms of our short-term borrowings would require us to provide additional collateral or to make partial repayment, which amounts could be substantial. These risks related to the use of repurchase agreements were significantly increased as a result of the assets acquired in, and the increase in our indebtedness resulting from, the Capstead merger and will continue to be heightened until we have completed the process of transitioning those acquired assets into our legacy investment strategies and returning to our traditional leverage levels. Further, such borrowings may require us to maintain a certain amount of cash reserves or to set aside unleveraged assets sufficient to maintain a specified liquidity position that would allow us to satisfy our collateral obligations. In addition, such short-term borrowing facilities may limit the length of time that any given asset may be used as eligible collateral, and these short-term borrowing arrangements may also be restricted to financing certain types of assets, such as first mortgage loans, which could impact our asset allocation. As a result, we may not be able to leverage our assets as fully as we would like, which could reduce our return on assets. In the event that we are unable to meet these collateral obligations, our financial condition could deteriorate rapidly. Risks Related to Our Investments Our commercial real estate debt investments are subject to the risks typically associated with commercial real estate. Our commercial real estate debt and commercial real estate securities generally are directly or indirectly secured by a lien on real property. The occurrence of a default on a commercial real estate debt investment could result in our acquiring ownership of the property. We do not know whether the values of the properties ultimately securing our commercial real estate debt and loans underlying our securities will remain at the levels existing on the dates of origination of these loans and the dates of origination of the loans ultimately securing our securities, as applicable. If the values of the properties drop, our risk will increase because of the lower value of the security and reduction in borrower equity associated with such loans. In this manner, real estate values could impact the values of our debt and security investments. Therefore, our commercial real estate debt and securities investments are subject to the risks typically associated with real estate. Our operating results may be adversely affected by a number of risks generally incident to holding real estate debt, including, without limitation: • natural disasters, such as hurricanes, earthquakes and floods, which we expect to increase in strength and frequency due to climate change; • acts of war or terrorism, or criminal violence, including the consequences of terrorist attacks; • adverse changes in national and local economic and real estate conditions; • adverse changes in economic and market conditions related to pandemics and health crises, such as COVID-19; • an oversupply of (or a reduction in demand for) space in the areas where particular properties securing our loans are located and the attractiveness of particular properties to prospective tenants; • changes in interest rates and availability of permanent mortgage funds that my render the sale of property difficult or unattractive; • changes in governmental laws and regulations, fiscal policies and zoning ordinances and the related costs of compliance therewith and the potential for liability under applicable laws; • costs of remediation and liabilities associated with environmental conditions affecting properties; • the potential for uninsured or underinsured property losses; and • periods of high interest rates and tight money supply. 11 Table of Contents The value of each property securing our loans is affected significantly by its ability to generate cash flow and net income, which in turn depends on the amount of rental or other income that can be generated net of expenses required to be incurred with respect to the property. Many expenses associated with properties (such as operating expenses and capital expenses) cannot be reduced when there is a reduction in income from the properties. These factors may have a material adverse effect on the ability of our borrowers to pay their loans and the ability of the borrowers on the underlying loans securing our securities to pay their loans, as well as on the value and the return that we can realize from assets we acquire and originate. Our success depends on the availability of attractive investment opportunities and the Advisor’s ability to identify, structure, consummate, leverage, manage and realize returns on our investments. Our operating results are dependent upon the availability of, as well as the Advisor’s ability to identify, structure, consummate, leverage, manage and realize returns on, our loans and other investments. In general, the availability of attractive investment opportunities and, consequently, our operating results, will be affected by the level and volatility of interest rates, conditions in the financial markets, general economic conditions, the demand for investment opportunities in our target assets and the supply of capital for such investment opportunities. We cannot assure you that the Advisor will be successful in identifying and consummating attractive investments or that such investments, once made, will perform as anticipated. There can be no assurances that the U.S. or global financial systems will remain stable, and the occurrence of another significant credit market disruption may negatively impact our ability to execute our investment strategy, which would materially and adversely affect us. The U.S. and global financial markets experienced significant disruptions in the past, during which times global credit markets collapsed, borrowers defaulted on their loans at historically high levels, banks and other lending institutions suffered heavy losses and the value of real estate declined. During such periods, a number of borrowers became unable to pay principal and interest on outstanding loans as the value of their real estate declined. After the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, liquidity eventually returned to the market and property values recovered to levels that exceeded those observed prior to the Global Financial Crisis. However, declining real estate values due to the COVID-19 pandemic, or other factors, could in the future reduce the level of new mortgage and other real estate-related loan originations. Instability in the U.S. and global financial markets in the future could be caused by any number of factors beyond our control, including, without limitation, terrorist attacks or other acts of war and adverse changes in national or international economic, market and political conditions or another health pandemic. Any future sustained period of increased payment delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect both our net interest income from loans in our portfolio as well as our ability to originate and acquire loans, which would materially and adversely affect us. Difficulty in redeploying the proceeds from repayments of our existing loans and other investments could materially and adversely affect us. As our loans and other investments are repaid, we attempt to redeploy the proceeds we receive into new loans and investments and repay borrowings under our repurchase facilities and other financing arrangements. It is possible that we will fail to identify reinvestment options that would provide a yield and/or a risk profile that is comparable to the asset that was repaid. If we fail to redeploy the proceeds we receive from repayment of a loan or other investment in equivalent or better alternatives, we could be materially and adversely affected. If we cannot redeploy the proceeds we receive from repayments into funding loans in property types or geographic markets that the Advisor has identified as priorities for us, such repayments may cause the composition of our loan portfolio to skew towards less favored property types or geographies and prevent us from achieving our portfolio construction objectives. Delays in liquidating defaulted commercial real estate debt investments could reduce our investment returns. If we originate or acquire commercial real estate debt investments and there are defaults under those debt investments, we may not be able to repossess and sell the properties securing the commercial real estate debt investment quickly. Foreclosure of a loan can be an expensive and lengthy process that could have a negative effect on our return on the foreclosed loan. Borrowers often resist foreclosure actions by asserting numerous claims, counterclaims and defenses, including but not limited to, lender liability claims, in an effort to prolong the foreclosure action. In some states, foreclosure actions can take several years or more to resolve. At any time during the foreclosure proceedings, the borrower may file for bankruptcy, which would have the effect of staying the foreclosure action and further delaying the foreclosure process. The resulting time delay could reduce the value of our assets in the defaulted loans. Furthermore, an action to foreclose on a property securing a loan is regulated by state statutes and regulations and is subject to the delays and expenses associated with lawsuits if the borrower raises defenses or counterclaims. In the event of default by a borrower, these restrictions, among other things, may impede our ability to foreclose on or sell the property securing the loan or to obtain proceeds sufficient to repay all amounts due to us on the loan. In addition, we have in the past and we may in the future be forced to operate any foreclosed properties for a substantial period of time, which could be a distraction for our management team and may require us to pay significant costs associated with such property. 12 Table of Contents Subordinate commercial real estate debt that we originate or acquire could expose us to greater losses. We acquire and originate subordinate commercial real estate debt, including subordinate mortgage and mezzanine loans and participations in such loans. These types of investments could constitute a significant portion of our portfolio and may involve a higher degree of risk than the type of assets that will constitute the majority of our commercial real estate debt investments, namely first mortgage loans secured by real property. In the event a borrower declares bankruptcy, we may not have full recourse to the assets of the borrower or the assets of the borrower may not be sufficient to satisfy the first mortgage loan and our subordinate debt investment. If a borrower defaults on our subordinate debt or on debt senior to ours, or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, our subordinate debt will be satisfied only after the senior debt is paid in full. Where debt senior to our debt investment exists, the presence of intercreditor arrangements may limit our ability to amend our debt agreements, assign our debt, accept prepayments, exercise our remedies (through “standstill periods”) and control decisions made in bankruptcy proceedings relating to our borrowers. As a result, we may not recover some or all of our investment. In addition, real properties with subordinate debt may have higher loan-to-value ratios than conventional debt, resulting in less equity in the real property and increasing the risk of loss of principal and interest. We may be subject to risks associated with construction lending, such as declining real estate values, cost overruns and delays in completion. Our commercial real estate debt portfolio may include loans made to developers to construct prospective projects. The primary risks to us of construction loans are the potential for cost overruns, the developer’s failing to meet a project delivery schedule and the inability of a developer to sell or refinance the project at completion in accordance with its business plan and repay our commercial real estate loan due to declining real estate values. These risks could cause us to have to fund more money than we originally anticipated in order to complete the project. We may also suffer losses on our commercial real estate debt if the developer is unable to sell the project or refinance our commercial real estate debt investment. Jurisdictions with one action or security first rules or anti-deficiency legislation may limit the ability to foreclose on the property or to realize the obligation secured by the property by obtaining a deficiency judgment. In the event of any default under our commercial real estate debt investments and in the loans underlying our commercial real estate securities, we bear the risk of loss of principal and nonpayment of interest and fees to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal amount of the loan. Certain states in which the collateral securing our commercial real estate debt and securities is located may have laws that prohibit more than one judicial action to enforce a mortgage obligation, requiring the lender to exhaust the real property security for such obligation first or limiting the ability of the lender to recover a deficiency judgment from the obligor following the lender’s realization upon the collateral, in particular if a non-judicial foreclosure is pursued. These statutes may limit the right to foreclose on the property or to realize the obligation secured by the property. Investments in non-conforming or non-investment grade rated loans or securities involve greater risk of loss. Some of our investments may not conform to conventional loan standards applied by traditional lenders and either will not be rated or will be rated as non-investment grade by the rating agencies. The non-investment grade ratings for these assets typically result from the overall leverage of the loans, the lack of a strong operating history for the properties underlying the loans, the borrowers’ credit history, the properties’ underlying cash flow or other factors. As a result, these investments may have a higher risk of default and loss than investment grade rated assets. Any loss we incur may be significant and may reduce distributions and adversely affect the value of our common stock. Insurance may not cover all potential losses on the properties underlying our investments which may harm the value of our assets. We generally require that each of the borrowers under our commercial real estate debt investments obtain comprehensive insurance covering the mortgaged property, including liability, fire and extended coverage. However, there are certain types of losses, generally of a catastrophic nature, such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes that may be uninsurable or not economically insurable. We may not require borrowers to obtain certain types of insurance if it is deemed commercially unreasonable. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations and other factors also might make it infeasible to use insurance proceeds to replace a property if it is damaged or destroyed. Under such circumstances, the insurance proceeds, if any, might not be adequate to restore the economic value of the property, which might impair our security and decrease the value of the property. 13 Table of Contents We invest in CMBS, which may include subordinate securities, which entails certain risks. We invest in a variety of CMBS, which may include subordinate securities that are subject to the first risk of loss if any losses are realized on the underlying mortgage loans. CMBS entitle the holders thereof to receive payments that depend primarily on the cash flow from a specified pool of commercial or multifamily mortgage loans. Consequently, CMBS will be adversely affected by payment defaults, delinquencies and losses on the underlying commercial real estate loans. Furthermore, if the rental and leasing markets deteriorate, it could reduce cash flow from the loan pools underlying our CMBS investments. The CMBS market is dependent upon liquidity for refinancing and will be negatively impacted by a slowdown in the new issue CMBS market. Additionally, CMBS is subject to particular risks, including lack of standardized terms and payment of all or substantially all of the principal only at maturity rather than regular amortization of principal. Additional risks may be presented by the type and use of a particular commercial property. For example, special risks are presented by hospitals, nursing homes, hospitality properties and certain other property types. Commercial property values and net operating income are subject to volatility, which may result in net operating income becoming insufficient to cover debt service on the related commercial real estate loan, particularly if the current economic environment deteriorates. The repayment of loans secured by income-producing properties is typically dependent upon the successful operation of the related real estate project rather than upon the liquidation value of the underlying real estate. Furthermore, the net operating income from and value of any commercial property are subject to various risks. The exercise of remedies and successful realization of liquidation proceeds relating to CMBS may be highly dependent upon the performance of the servicer or special servicer. Expenses of enforcing the underlying commercial real estate loans (including litigation expenses) and expenses of protecting the properties securing the commercial real estate loans may be substantial. Consequently, in the event of a default or loss on one or more commercial real estate loans contained in a securitization, we may not recover a portion or all of our investment. The CMBS in which we may invest are subject to the risks of the mortgage securities market as a whole and risks of the securitization process. The value of CMBS may change due to shifts in the market’s perception of issuers and regulatory or tax changes adversely affecting the mortgage securities market as a whole. Due to our investment in subordinate CMBS, we are also subject to several risks created through the securitization process. Our subordinate CMBS are paid interest only to the extent that there are funds available to make payments. To the extent the collateral pool includes delinquent loans, there is a risk that the interest payment on subordinate CMBS will not be fully paid. Subordinate CMBS are also subject to greater credit risk than those CMBS that are senior and generally more highly rated. We may not control the special servicing of the mortgage loans underlying the CMBS in which we invest and, in such cases, the special servicer may take actions that could adversely affect our interests. Overall control over the special servicing of the underlying mortgage loans of the CMBS may be held by a directing certificate holder, which is appointed by the holders of the most subordinate class of such CMBS. We ordinarily do not have the right to appoint the directing certificate holder. 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 that could adversely affect our interests. We invest in collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs") and such investments involve significant risks. We invest in CDOs, which are multiple class securities secured by pools of assets, such as CMBS, subordinate mortgage and mezzanine loans and REIT debt. Like typical securities structures, in a CDO, the assets are pledged to a trustee for the benefit of the holders of the bonds. Like CMBS, CDO notes are affected by payments, defaults, delinquencies and losses on the underlying commercial real estate loans. CDOs often have reinvestment periods that typically last for five years during which proceeds from the sale of a collateral asset may be invested in substitute collateral. Upon termination of the reinvestment period, the static pool functions very similarly to a CMBS where repayment of principal allows for redemption of bonds sequentially. When we invest in the equity securities of a CDO, we will be entitled to all of the income generated by the CDO after the CDO pays all of the interest due on the senior securities and its expenses. However, there will be little or no income or principal available to the holders of CDO equity securities if defaults or losses on the underlying collateral exceed a certain amount. In that event, the value of our investment in any equity class of a CDO could decrease substantially. In addition, the equity securities of CDOs are generally illiquid and often must be held by a REIT and because they represent a leveraged investment in the CDO’s assets, the value of the equity securities will generally have greater fluctuations than the values of the underlying collateral. 14 Table of Contents Adjustable-rate commercial real estate loans may entail greater risks of default to us than fixed-rate commercial real estate loans. Adjustable-rate commercial real estate loans we originate or acquire or that collateralize our commercial real estate securities may have higher delinquency rates than fixed-rate loans. Borrowers with adjustable-rate mortgage loans may be exposed to increased monthly payments if the related interest rate adjusts upward from the initial fixed-rate or a low introductory rate, as applicable, in effect during the initial period of the loan to the rate computed in accordance with the applicable index and margin. This increase in borrowers’ monthly payments, together with any increase in prevailing market interest rates, after the initial fixed-rate period, may result in significantly increased monthly payments for borrowers with adjustable-rate loans, which may make it more difficult for the borrowers to repay the loan or could increase the risk of default of their obligations under the loan. Changes in interest rates could negatively affect the value of our investments, which could result in reduced income or losses and negatively affect the cash available for distribution. We may invest in fixed-rate CMBS and other fixed-rate investments. Under a normal yield curve, an investment in these instruments will decline in value if long-term interest rates increase. We will also invest in floating-rate investments, for which decreases in interest rates will have a negative effect on interest income. Declines in fair value may ultimately reduce income or result in losses to us, which may negatively affect cash available for distribution. Hedging against interest rate exposure may adversely affect our income, limit our gains or result in losses, which could adversely affect cash available for distribution to our stockholders. We may enter into interest rate swap agreements or pursue other interest rate hedging strategies. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on interest rate levels, the type of investments held, and other changing market conditions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things: • interest rate hedging can be expensive, particularly during periods of rising and volatile interest rates; • available interest rate hedging may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk for which protection is sought; • the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related liability or asset; • our hedging opportunities may be limited by the treatment of income from hedging transactions under the rules determining REIT qualification; • the credit quality of the party owing money on the hedge may be downgraded to such an extent that it impairs our ability to sell or assign our side of the hedging transaction; • the party owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay; and • we may purchase a hedge that turns out not to be necessary. Any hedging activity we engage in may adversely affect our income, which could adversely affect cash available for distribution. Therefore, while we may enter into such transactions to seek to reduce interest rate risks, unanticipated changes in interest rates may result in poorer overall investment performance than if we had not engaged in any such hedging transactions. In addition, the degree of correlation between price movements of the instruments used in a hedging strategy and price movements in the portfolio positions being hedged or liabilities being hedged may vary materially. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, we may not be able to establish a perfect correlation between hedging instruments and the investment being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss. Most of our investments are illiquid and we may not be able to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions, which may result in losses to us. Most of our investments are illiquid. As a result, our ability to sell commercial real estate debt, securities or properties in response to changes in economic and other conditions, could be limited, even at distressed prices. The Internal Revenue Code also places limits on our ability to sell properties held for fewer than four years. These considerations could make it difficult for us to dispose of any of our assets even if a disposition were in the best interests of our stockholders. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to further changes in economic and other conditions may be relatively limited, which may result in losses to us. 15 Table of Contents Some of our investments will be carried at estimated fair value as determined by us and, as a result, there may be uncertainty as to the value of these investments. Some of our investments will be in the form of securities that are recorded at fair value but have limited liquidity or are not publicly-traded. The fair value of these securities and potentially other investments that have limited liquidity or are not publicly-traded may not be readily determinable. We estimate the fair value of these investments on a quarterly basis. Because such valuations are inherently uncertain, may fluctuate over short periods of time and may be based on numerous estimates and assumptions, our determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have been used if a readily available market for these securities existed. The value of our common stock could be adversely affected if our determinations regarding the fair value of these investments are materially higher than the values that we ultimately realize upon their disposal. Competition with third parties for originating and acquiring investments may reduce our profitability. We have significant competition with respect to our origination and acquisition of assets with many other companies, including other REITs, insurance companies, commercial banks, private investment funds, hedge funds, specialty finance companies and other investors, many of which have greater resources than us. We may not be able to compete successfully for investments. In addition, the number of entities and the amount of funds competing for suitable investments may increase. If we pay higher prices for investments or originate loans on more generous terms than our competitors, our returns will be lower and the value of our assets may not increase or may decrease significantly below the amount we paid for such assets. If such events occur, our investors may experience a lower return on their investment. Our due diligence may not reveal all material issues relating to our origination or acquisition of a particular investment. Before making an investment, we assess the strength and skills of the management of the borrower or the operator of the property and other factors that we believe are material to the performance of the investment. In making the assessment and otherwise conducting customary due diligence, we rely on the resources available to us and, in some cases, an investigation by third parties. This process is particularly important and subjective with respect to newly organized or private entities because there may be little or no information publicly available about the entity. Even if we conduct extensive due diligence on a particular investment, there can be no assurance that this diligence will uncover all material issues relating to such investment, or that factors outside of our control will not later arise. If our due diligence fails to identify issues specific to investment, we may be forced to write-down or write-off assets, restructure our operations or incur impairment or other charges that could result in our reporting losses. Charges of this nature could contribute to negative market perceptions about us or our shares of common stock. We may be unable to restructure loans in a manner that we believe maximizes value, particularly if we are one of multiple creditors in large capital structures. In the current environment, in order to maximize value we may be more likely to extend and work out a loan, rather than pursue foreclosure. However, in situations where there are multiple creditors in large capital structures, it can be particularly difficult to assess the most likely course of action that a lender group or the borrower may take and it may also be difficult to achieve consensus among the lender group as to major decisions. Consequently, there could be a wide range of potential principal recovery outcomes, the timing of which can be unpredictable, based on the strategy pursued by a lender group and/or by a borrower. These multiple creditor situations tend to be associated with larger loans. If we are one of a group of lenders, we may be a lender on a subordinated basis, and may not independently control the decision making. Consequently, we may be unable to restructure a loan in a manner that we believe would maximize value. We may be subject to risks associated with future advance obligations, such as declining real estate values and operating performance. Our commercial real estate debt portfolio may include loans that require us to advance future funds. Future funding obligations subject us to significant risks that the property may have declined in value, projects to be completed with the additional funds may have cost overruns and the borrower may be unable to generate enough cash flow, or sell or refinance the property, in order to repay our commercial real estate loan due. We could determine that we need to fund more money than we originally anticipated in order to maximize the value of our investment even though there is no assurance additional funding would be the best course of action. 16 Table of Contents While we attempt to align the maturities of our liabilities with the maturities on our assets, we may not be successful in that regard which could harm our operating results and financial condition. Our general financing strategy will include the use of “match-funded” structures. This means that we will seek to align the maturities of our liabilities with the maturities on our assets in order to manage the risks of being forced to refinance our liabilities prior to the maturities of our assets. We may fail to appropriately employ match-funded structures on favorable terms, or at all. We may also determine not to pursue a match-funded structure with respect to a portion of our financings for a variety of reasons. If we fail to appropriately employ match-funded structures, our exposure to interest rate volatility and exposure to matching liabilities prior to the maturity of the corresponding asset may increase substantially which could harm our operating results, liquidity and financial condition. Provision for credit losses is difficult to estimate. O ur provision for credit losses is evaluated on a quarterly basis. Our determination of provision for credit losses requires us to make certain estimates and judgments. Our estimates and judgments are based on a number of factors, including projected cash flows from the collateral securing our commercial real estate debt, debt structure, including the availability of reserves and recourse guarantees, likelihood of repayment in full at the maturity of a loan, loan-to-value ("LTV"), potential for refinancing and expected market discount rates for varying property types. Our estimates and judgments may not be correct and, therefore, our results of operations and financial condition could be severely impacted. Since the start of 2020 we have been subject to the FASB’s Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-13, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. The new standard, known as the Current Expected Credit Loss (“CECL”) model, significantly changed how entities measure credit losses for most financial assets and certain other instruments that are not measured at fair value through net income. CECL amended the existing credit loss model to reflect a reporting entity's current estimate of all expected credit losses, not only based on historical experience and current conditions, but also by including reasonable and supportable forecasts incorporating forward-looking information. This measurement takes place at the time the financial asset is first added to the balance sheet and updated quarterly thereafter. This differs significantly from the prior “incurred loss” model. Any credit ratings assigned to our investments will be subject to ongoing evaluations and revisions and we cannot assure you that those ratings will not be downgraded. Some of our investments may be rated by rating agencies. Any credit ratings on our investments are subject to ongoing evaluation by credit rating agencies, and we cannot assure you that any such ratings will not be downgraded or withdrawn by a rating agency in the future if, in its judgment, circumstances warrant. If rating agencies assign a lower-than-expected rating or reduce or withdraw, or indicate that they may reduce or withdraw, their ratings of FBRT’s investments in the future, the value and liquidity of our investments could significantly decline, which would adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio and could result in losses upon disposition or the failure of borrowers to satisfy their debt service obligations to us. Changes to, or the elimination of, LIBOR may adversely affect our interest income, interest expense, or both. In July 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority of the U.K. (the “FCA”) announced its intention to cease sustaining LIBOR after 2021. The FCA has statutory powers to require panel banks to contribute to LIBOR where necessary. The FCA has decided not to ask, or to require, that panel banks continue to submit contributions to LIBOR beyond the end of 2021. The FCA has indicated that it expects that the current panel banks will voluntarily sustain LIBOR until the end of 2021. It is possible that the ICE Benchmark Administration Limited (formerly NYSE Euronext Rate Administration Limited) (the “IBA”), the current administrator of LIBOR, and the panel banks could continue to produce LIBOR on the current basis after 2021, if they are willing and able to do so, but we do not currently anticipate that LIBOR will survive in its current form, or at all. Other jurisdictions have also indicated that they will implement reforms or phase-outs, which are currently scheduled to take effect at the end of calendar year 2021. The U.S. Federal Reserve, in conjunction with the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, a steering committee comprised of large U.S. financial institutions, has identified the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”), a new index calculated by short-term repurchase agreements, backed by Treasury securities, as its preferred alternative for LIBOR. At this time, it is not possible to predict how markets will respond to SOFR or other alternative reference rates as the transition away from LIBOR is anticipated in coming years. 17 Table of Contents As of December 31, 2021, the carrying value of our loan portfolio included $3.7 billion and $0.4 billion of floating rate loans for which the interest rate was tied to LIBOR or SOFR, respectively. Additionally, we had $3.3 billion of floating rate debt tied to LIBOR. Our financing arrangements generally provide for the adoption of a new index based upon comparable information if the current index is no longer available. There is currently no definitive information regarding the future utilization of LIBOR or of any particular replacement rate. In addition, any benchmark may perform differently during any phase-out period than in the past. As such, the potential effect of any such event on our cost of capital and net interest income cannot yet be determined, and any changes to benchmark interest rates could increase our financing costs, which could impact our results of operations, cash flows and the market value of investments. In addition, the elimination of LIBOR and/or changes to another index could result in mismatches with the interest rate of investments that we are financing, and the overall financial markets may be disrupted as a result of the phase-out or replacement of LIBOR; however, we cannot reasonably estimate the impact of the transition at this time. The transition from LIBOR to SOFR or other alternative reference rates may also introduce operational risks in our accounting, financial reporting, loan servicing, liability management and other aspects of its business. Risks Related to the Conduit Segment of the Business We use warehouse facilities that may limit our ability to acquire assets, and we may incur losses if the collateral is liquidated. We utilize warehouse facilities pursuant to which we accumulate mortgage loans in anticipation of a securitization financing, which assets are pledged as collateral for such facilities until the securitization transaction is consummated. In order to borrow funds to acquire assets under any additional warehouse facilities, we expect that our lenders thereunder would have the right to review the potential assets for which we are seeking financing. We may be unable to obtain the consent of a lender to acquire assets that we believe would be beneficial to us and we may be unable to obtain alternate financing for such assets. In addition, no assurance can be given that a securitization transaction would be consummated with respect to the assets being warehoused. If the securitization is not consummated, the lender could liquidate the warehoused collateral and we would then have to pay any amount by which the original purchase price of the collateral assets exceeds its sale price, subject to negotiated caps, if any, on our exposure. In addition, regardless of whether the securitization is consummated, if any of the warehoused collateral is sold before the consummation, we would have to bear any resulting loss on the sale. No assurance can be given that we will be able to obtain additional warehouse facilities on favorable terms, or at all. We directly or indirectly utilize non‑recourse securitizations, and such structures expose us to risks that could result in losses to us. We utilize non‑recourse securitizations of our investments in mortgage loans to the extent consistent with the maintenance of our REIT qualification and exemption from the Investment Company Act in order to generate cash for funding new investments and/or to leverage existing assets. In most instances, this involves us transferring our loans to a special purpose securitization entity in exchange for cash. In some sale transactions, we also retain a subordinated interest in the loans sold. The securitization of our portfolio investments might magnify our exposure to losses on those portfolio investments because the subordinated interest we retain in the loans sold would be subordinate to the senior interest in the loans sold, and we would, therefore, absorb all of the losses sustained with respect to a loan sold before the owners of the senior interest experience any losses. Moreover, we cannot be assured that we will be able to access the securitization market in the future, or be able to do so at favorable rates. The inability to consummate securitizations of our portfolio investments to finance our investments 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 adversely affect our performance and our ability to continue to grow our business. The securitization market is subject to a regulatory environment that may affect certain aspects of these activities. As a result of the dislocation of the credit markets, the securitization industry has become subject to additional regulation. In particular, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, various federal agencies have promulgated a rule that generally requires issuers in securitizations to retain 5% of the risk associated with the securities. While the rule as adopted generally allows the purchase of the CMBS B-Piece by a party not affiliated with the issuer to satisfy the risk retention requirement, current CMBS B-Pieces are generally not large enough to fully satisfy the 5% requirement. Accordingly, buyers of B-Pieces such as us may be required to purchase larger B-Pieces, potentially reducing returns on such investments. Furthermore, any such B-Pieces purchased by a party (such as us) unaffiliated with the issuer generally cannot be transferred for a period of five years following the closing date of the securitization or hedged against credit risk. These restrictions would reduce our liquidity and could potentially reduce our returns on such investments. 18 Table of Contents We enter into hedging transactions that could expose us to contingent liabilities in the future. Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, part of our investment strategy involves entering into hedging transactions that require us to fund cash payments in certain circumstances (such as the early termination of the hedging instrument caused by an event of default or other early termination event, or the decision by a counterparty to request margin securities it is contractually owed under the terms of the hedging instrument). The amount due would be equal to the unrealized loss of the open swap positions with the respective counterparty and could also include other fees and charges. These economic losses will be reflected in our results of operations, and our ability to fund these obligations will depend on the liquidity of our assets and access to capital at the time, and the need to fund these obligations could adversely impact our financial condition. Risks Related to the Capstead Merger We may not be able to realize the anticipated benefits of the merger on the anticipated timeframe or at all. The merger involved the combination of two companies that operated as independent public companies. We may encounter the following difficulties in integrating the acquired assets into our operations: • we may not be able to convert Capstead’s securities portfolio into cash at the prices we expected when we entered into the merger agreement, or in the timeframe we expected; • we may not be able to successfully redeploy the capital generated from Capstead’s assets into investments made pursuant to the Company’s traditional investment strategies at return thresholds consistent with our historical returns, or within the expected timetable; • we may encounter unknown liabilities and unforeseen increased expenses, delays or conditions associated with the merger; and • we may experience performance shortfalls as a result of the diversion of management’s attention caused by the merger. These challenges could result in the distraction of the Company’s management, the disruption of the Company’s ongoing business or inconsistencies in our operations, services, standards, controls, policies and procedures, any of which could adversely affect the Company’s ability to deliver investment returns to stockholders, to maintain relationships with our key stakeholders, to achieve the anticipated benefits of the merger, or could otherwise materially and adversely affect our business and financial results. Changes in interest rates, whether increases or decreases, may adversely affect yields on the securities acquired in the merger. The securities we acquired in the Capstead acquisition primarily consist of residential adjustable-rate mortgage (“ARM”) pass-through securities issued and guaranteed by government-sponsored enterprises or by an agency of the federal government. Only a portion of coupon interest rates on the ARM loans underlying these securities reset each month and the terms of these ARM loans generally limit the amount of any increases during any single interest rate adjustment period and over the life of a loan. During periods of relatively low short term interest rates, declines in the indices used to determine coupon interest rate resets for ARM loans may adversely affect yields on the Capstead ARM securities as the underlying ARM loans reset at lower rates. An increase in prepayments may adversely affect the fair value of the Capstead portfolio. Prepayment expectations are an essential part of pricing mortgage investments in the marketplace and the speed of prepayments can vary widely from month to month and across individual investments; however, until we have liquidated the Capstead portfolio, prolonged periods of high mortgage prepayments could significantly reduce the expected life of the Capstead portfolio. Therefore, actual yields we realize can be lower due to faster amortization of investment premiums, which can adversely affect earnings. High levels of mortgage prepayments can also lead to larger than anticipated demands on our liquidity from our lending counterparties. Additionally, periods of high prepayments can adversely affect pricing for most of Capstead’s mortgage investments and, as a result, book value per common share can be adversely affected due to declines in the fair value of the remaining Capstead portfolio. 19 Table of Contents Periods of illiquidity in the mortgage markets may reduce amounts available under secured borrowing arrangements due to declines in the perceived value of related collateral and may reduce the number of counterparties willing to lend to us and/or the amounts individual counterparties are willing to lend, both of which could adversely impact our liquidity, financial condition and earnings. Capstead financed its portfolio by pledging individual securities as collateral under uncommitted secured borrowing arrangements. If the perceived market value of the pledged collateral of the Capstead portfolio as determined by the lenders under these arrangements declines, we may be subject to margin calls wherein the lender requires us to pledge additional collateral to reestablish the agreed-upon margin percentage. Because market illiquidity tends to put downward pressure on asset prices, we may be presented with substantial margin calls during such periods. If we are unable or unwilling to pledge additional collateral, lenders can liquidate the collateral or seek other remedies, potentially under adverse market conditions, resulting in losses. At such times we may determine that it is prudent to sell assets to improve our ability to pledge sufficient collateral to support our remaining secured borrowings, which could result in losses. In addition, lower pricing levels for remaining investments will lead to declines in book value per common share. Our ability to achieve our investment objectives depends on our ability to re-establish or roll maturing secured borrowings on a continuous basis and none of our counterparties are obligated to enter into new borrowing transactions at the conclusion of existing transactions. During periods of market illiquidity or due to perceived credit deterioration of the collateral pledged or of us, a lender may require that less favorable asset pricing procedures be employed, margin requirements be increased and/or may choose to limit or completely curtail lending to us. If a counterparty chooses not to roll a maturing borrowing, we must pay off the borrowing, generally with cash available from another secured borrowing arrangement entered into with another counterparty. If we determine that we do not have sufficient borrowing capacity with our remaining counterparties, we could be forced to sell assets under potentially adverse market conditions, which could result in losses. An industry-wide reduction in the availability of secured borrowings could adversely affect pricing levels for mortgage investments leading to declines in our liquidity and book value per common share. Under these conditions, we may determine that it is prudent to sell assets to improve our ability to pledge sufficient collateral to support our remaining borrowings, which could result in losses. In addition, lower pricing levels for remaining investments will lead to declines in book value per common share. We incurred direct and indirect costs as a result of the merger with Capstead We incurred substantial expenses in connection with and as a result of completing the merger with Capstead and expect to incur additional expenses in connection with integrating the acquired business. Factors beyond our control could affect the total amount or timing of these expenses, many of which, by their nature, are difficult to estimate accurately. We have a significant amount of indebtedness and may need to incur more in the future. We have substantial indebtedness following completion of the Merger. In addition, in connection with executing our business strategies following the Merger, we expect to evaluate the possibility of originating, funding, and acquiring additional commercial real estate debt and making other strategic investments, and we may elect to finance these endeavors by incurring additional indebtedness. The amount of such indebtedness could have material adverse consequences, including: • hindering our ability to adjust to changing market, industry or economic conditions; • limiting our ability to access the capital markets to raise additional equity or refinance maturing debt on favorable terms or to fund acquisitions or emerging businesses; • limiting the amount of cash flow available for future operations, acquisitions, dividends, stock repurchases or other uses; • making us more vulnerable to economic or industry downturns, including interest rate increases; and • placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared to less leveraged competitors. Moreover, we may be required to raise substantial additional capital to execute our business strategy. Our ability to arrange additional financing will depend on, among other factors, our financial position and performance, as well as prevailing market conditions and other factors beyond our control. If we are unable to obtain additional financing, our credit ratings could be further adversely affected, which could further raise our borrowing costs and further limit our future access to capital and our ability to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness. 20 Table of Contents Risks Related to Taxation Our failure to qualify as a REIT could have significant adverse consequences to us and the value of our common stock. We believe that we have qualified as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2013. We intend to continue to meet the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT, but we cannot assure stockholders that we qualify as a REIT. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Internal Revenue Code provisions for which only a limited number of judicial and administrative interpretations exist. Moreover, new tax legislation, administrative guidance or court decisions, in each instance potentially with retroactive effect, could make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify as a REIT. Even an inadvertent or technical mistake could jeopardize our REIT status. Our qualification as a REIT depends on our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis: • Our compliance depends upon the characterization of our assets and income for REIT purposes, as well as the relative values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination and for which we typically do not obtain independent appraisals. Moreover, we invest in certain assets with respect to which the rules applicable to REITs may be particularly difficult to interpret or to apply, including the rules applicable to financing arrangements that are structured as sale and repurchase agreements; mezzanine loans; and investments in real estate mortgage loans that are acquired at a discount, subject to work-outs or modifications, or reasonably expected to be in default at the time of acquisition. If the IRS challenged our treatment of investments for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests, and if such a challenge were sustained, we could fail to qualify as a REIT. • The fact that we own direct or indirect interests in an entity that will elect to be taxed as a REIT under the U.S. federal income tax laws (a “Subsidiary REIT”), further complicates the application of the REIT requirements for us. The Subsidiary REIT is subject to the various REIT qualification requirements that are applicable to us and certain other requirements. If the Subsidiary REIT were to fail to qualify as a REIT, then (i) it would become subject to regular U.S. federal corporate income tax, (ii) our interest in such Subsidiary REIT would cease to be a qualifying asset for purposes of the REIT asset tests, and (iii) it is possible that we would fail certain of the REIT asset tests, in which event we also would fail to qualify as a REIT unless we could avail ourselves of relief provisions. If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year and are unable to avail ourselves of certain savings provisions set forth in the Internal Revenue Code, we would be subject to U.S federal and applicable state and local income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates (including any applicable alternative minimum tax (which alternative minimum tax has been repealed for tax years after 2017)). Losing our REIT status would reduce our net income available for investment or distribution to stockholders because of the additional tax liability. In addition, distributions to stockholders would no longer qualify for the dividends-paid deduction, and we would no longer be required to make distributions. If this occurs, we might be required to borrow or liquidate some investments in order to pay the applicable tax. We would not be able to elect to be taxed as a REIT for four years following the year we first failed to qualify unless the IRS were to grant us relief under certain statutory provisions. The failure of a mezzanine loan to qualify as a real estate asset could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT. The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") has issued Revenue Procedure 2003-65, which provides a safe harbor pursuant to which a mezzanine loan, if it meets certain requirements, will be treated by the IRS as a real estate asset for purposes of the REIT asset tests, and interest derived from such loan will be treated as qualifying mortgage interest for purposes of the REIT 75% gross income test. Although the Revenue Procedure provides a safe harbor on which taxpayers may rely, it does not prescribe rules of substantive tax law. We may originate or acquire mezzanine loans that do not satisfy all of the requirements for reliance on the safe harbor set forth in the Revenue Procedure, in which case, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not challenge the tax treatment of such loans. If such a challenge were sustained, we could fail to qualify as a REIT. Even if we qualify as a REIT, we may be subject to tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow for distribution to our stockholders. Even if we qualify as a REIT, we may be subject to some U.S. federal, state and local taxes on our income or property. For example: • In order to qualify as a REIT, we must distribute annually at least 90% of our "REIT taxable income" (determined before the deduction of dividends paid and excluding net capital gains) to our stockholders. To the extent that we satisfy the distribution requirement but distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, we will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on our undistributed income. • We will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which distributions we pay in any calendar year are less than the sum of 85% of our ordinary income, 95% of our capital gain net income and 100% of our undistributed income from prior years. 21 Table of Contents • If we have net income from the sale of foreclosure property that we hold primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business or other non-qualifying income from foreclosure property, we must pay a tax on that income at the highest corporate income tax rate. • If we sell an asset, other than a foreclosure property, that we hold primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, our gain would be subject to the 100% “prohibited transaction” tax. We might be subject to this tax if we were to dispose of or securitize loans in a manner that is treated as a sale of loans for U.S. federal income tax purposes that is subject to the prohibited transaction tax. • Any TRS of ours will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on its taxable income, and non-arm’s length transactions between us and any TRS, could be subject to a 100% tax. • We could, in certain circumstances, be required to pay an excise or penalty tax (which could be significant in amount) in order to utilize one or more relief provisions under the Internal Revenue Code to maintain our qualification as a REIT. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our stockholders. The failure of assets subject to repurchase agreements to qualify as real estate assets could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT. We are party to certain financing arrangements, and may in the future enter into additional financing arrangements, that are structured as sale and repurchase agreements pursuant to which we would nominally sell certain of our assets to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase these assets at a later date in exchange for a purchase price. Economically, these agreements are financings which are secured by the assets sold pursuant thereto. We believe that we would be treated for REIT asset and income test purposes as the owner of the assets that are the subject of any such sale and repurchase agreement notwithstanding that such agreement may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could assert that we did not own the assets during the term of the sale and repurchase agreement, in which case we could fail to qualify as a REIT. The “taxable mortgage pool” rules may increase the taxes that we or our stockholders incur, and may limit the manner in which we effect future securitizations . Securitizations in the form of bonds or notes secured principally by mortgage loans generally result in the creation of taxable mortgage pools (“TMPs”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The debt securities issued by TMPs are sometimes referred to as “collateralized mortgage obligations” (“CMOs”). We have issued CMOs through TMPs. Unless a TMP is wholly-owned by a REIT, it is subject to taxation as a corporation. However, so long as a REIT owns 100% of the equity interests in a TMP, the TMP will not be taxed as a corporation. Instead, certain categories of the REIT’s stockholders, such as foreign stockholders eligible for treaty or sovereign benefits, stockholders with net operating losses, and generally tax-exempt stockholders that are subject to unrelated business income tax, may be subject to taxation, or to increased taxes, on any portion, known as “excess inclusions”, of their dividend income from the REIT that is attributable to the TMP, but only to the extent that the REIT actually distributes “excess inclusions” to them. We intend not to distribute “excess inclusions”, but to pay the tax on “excess inclusions” ourselves. Notwithstanding our intention to try to avoid distributions to our stockholders of “excess inclusions”, it is possible that some portion of our dividends to our stockholders may be so characterized. In order to better control, and to attempt to avoid, the distribution of “excess inclusions” to our stockholders, as of January 1, 2022, our TMPs are wholly-owned by a Subsidiary REIT. Our Subsidiary REIT is required to satisfy, on a stand-alone basis, the REIT asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements described above, and if it were to fail to qualify as a REIT, then (i) our Subsidiary REIT would face adverse tax consequences similar to those described above with respect to our qualification as a REIT and (ii) such failure could have an adverse effect on our ability to comply with the REIT income and asset tests and thus could impair our ability to qualify as a REIT unless we could avail ourselves of certain relief provisions. Because our TMPs must at all times be owned by a REIT, we are restricted from selling equity interests in them, or selling any notes or bonds issued by them that might be considered to be equity for tax purposes, to other investors if doing so would subject them to taxation. These restrictions limit the liquidity of our investment in our TMPs and may prevent us from incurring greater leverage on that investment in order to maximize our returns from it. 22 Table of Contents The prohibited transactions tax may limit our ability to engage in transactions, including certain methods of securitizing mortgage loans that would be treated as sales for U.S. federal income tax purposes. A REIT’s net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of assets, other than foreclosure property, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to the prohibited transaction tax if we were to dispose of, modify or securitize loans in a manner that is treated as a sale of the loans for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales or modifications of loans at the REIT level and may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions, even though the sales, modifications or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us. Additionally, we may be subject to the prohibited transaction tax upon a disposition of real property. Although a safe-harbor exception to prohibited transaction treatment is available, there can be no assurance that we can comply with the safe harbor or that we will avoid owning property that may be characterized as held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. It may be possible to reduce the impact of the prohibited transaction tax by conducting certain activities through a TRS. However, to the extent that we engage in such activities through a TRS, the income associated with such activities may be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax. Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively and may cause us to incur tax liabilities. The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code may limit our ability to hedge our assets and operations. Under these provisions, any income that we generate from hedging transactions will be excluded from gross income for purposes of the REIT 75% and 95% gross income tests if the instrument hedges: (i) interest rate risk on liabilities incurred to carry or acquire real estate assets; or (ii) risk of currency fluctuations with respect to any item of income or gain that would be qualifying income under the REIT 75% or 95% gross income tests, and such instrument is properly identified under applicable U.S. Department of Treasury regulations ("Treasury Regulations"). Income from hedging transactions that do not meet these requirements will generally constitute non-qualifying income for purposes of both the REIT 75% and 95% gross income tests. As a result, we may have to limit our use of hedging techniques that might otherwise be advantageous, which could result in greater risks associated with interest rate or other changes than we would otherwise incur. Liquidation of assets may jeopardize our REIT qualification. To qualify as a REIT, we must comply with requirements regarding our assets and our sources of income. If we are compelled to liquidate our investments to repay obligations to our lenders, we may be unable to comply with these requirements, ultimately jeopardizing our qualification as a REIT, or we may be subject to a 100% prohibited transaction tax on any resultant gain if we sell assets that are treated as dealer property or inventory. Modification of the terms of our debt investments and mortgage loans underlying our CMBS in conjunction with reductions in the value of the real property securing such loans could cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT. Our debt and securities investments may be materially affected by a weak real estate market and economy in general. As a result, many of the terms of our debt and the mortgage loans underlying our securities may be modified to avoid taking title to a property. Under the Internal Revenue Code, if the terms of a loan are modified in a manner constituting a "significant modification," such modification triggers a deemed exchange of the original loan for the modified loan. In general, under applicable Treasury Regulations if a loan is secured by real property and other property and the highest principal amount of the loan outstanding during a taxable year exceeds the fair market value of the real property securing the loan determined as of the date we agreed to acquire the loan or the date we significantly modified the loan, a portion of the interest income from such loan will not be qualifying income for purposes of the REIT 75% gross income test, but will be qualifying income for purposes of the REIT 95% gross income test. Although the law is not entirely clear, a portion of the loan will likely be a non-qualifying asset for purposes of the REIT 75% asset test. The non-qualifying portion of such a loan would be subject to, among other requirements, the requirement that a REIT not hold securities possessing more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer ("10% Value Test"). 23 Table of Contents IRS Revenue Procedure 2014-51 provides a safe harbor pursuant to which we will not be required to redetermine the fair market value of real property securing a loan for purposes of the gross income and asset tests discussed above in connection with a loan modification that is: (i) occasioned by a borrower default; or (ii) made at a time when we reasonably believe that the modification to the loan will substantially reduce a significant risk of default on the original loan. No assurance can be provided that all of our loan modifications have or will qualify for the safe harbor in Revenue Procedure 2014-51. To the extent we significantly modify loans in a manner that does not qualify for that safe harbor, we will be required to redetermine the value of the real property securing the loan at the time it was significantly modified. In determining the value of the real property securing such a loan, we generally will not obtain third-party appraisals, but rather will rely on internal valuations. No assurance can be provided that the IRS will not successfully challenge our internal valuations. If the terms of our debt investments and the mortgage loans underlying our CMBS are "significantly modified" in a manner that does not qualify for the safe harbor in Revenue Procedure 2014-51 and the fair market value of the real property securing such loans has decreased significantly, we could fail the REIT 75% gross income test, the 75% asset test and/or the 10% Value Test. Unless we qualified for relief under certain Internal Revenue Code cure provisions, such failures could cause us to fail to continue to qualify as a REIT. Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments. None.