New Residential Investment Corp. (“New Residential”, “we”, “us” or “our”) is an investment manager with a publicly tradedvertically integrated mortgage platform. We are structured as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) primarily focusedfor U.S. federal income tax purposes.

For more details on opportunistically investing in,our portfolio, see “—Our Portfolio” below, as well as “Management’s Discussion and actively managing, investments related to residential real estate. Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Our Portfolio.” For information concerning current market trends which impact our portfolio, see “—The Residential Real Estate Market,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Market Considerations” and “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

We were formed as a wholly owned subsidiary of Drive Shack Inc. (formerly Newcastle Investment Corp., “Drive Shack”) in September 2011 and were spun-off from Drive Shack on May 15, 2013, which we refer to as the “distribution date.” Our stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “NRZ.” We are externally managed and advised by an affiliate (our “Manager”) of Fortress Investment Group LLC (“Fortress”) pursuant to a management agreement (the “Management Agreement”). In 2016, our wholly-owned subsidiary, New Residential Mortgage LLC (“NRM”), became a licensed or otherwise eligible mortgage servicer.

The residential mortgage industry is transforming the way mortgages are originated, owned and serviced. We believe significant investment opportunities exist in today’s complex and dynamic mortgage market. As a major capital provider to the mortgage servicing industry, we believemarket and that we are one of only a select number of non-bank market participants that have the combination of capital, infrastructure, industry expertise and key business relationships that are necessary to take advantage of these opportunities. Our ability to originate mortgage loans, own MSRs and service loans positions us to support, connect with and provide solutions to homeowners throughout the lifetime of their mortgage loan.

The U.S. residential real estate market is vast: Thethe value of the housing market totaled approximately $33.3$36.2 trillion as of September 2018,December 2020, including about $10.8$11.4 trillion of single-family mortgage debt outstanding, according to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

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

Now, institutions that originate residential mortgage loans generally hold a smaller portion of such loans as assets on their balance sheets and instead sell a significant portion of the loans they originate to third parties. GSEs (defined below)Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, Government-sponsored enterprises (“GSEs”)) are currently the largest purchasers of residential mortgage loans.

Under a process known as securitization, GSEs and financial institutions typically package residential mortgage loans into pools that are sold to securitization trusts. These securitization trusts fund the acquisition of residential mortgage loans by issuing securities, known as residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”), which entitle the owner of such securities to receive a portion of the interest and/or principal collected on the residential mortgage loans in the pool. The purchasers of the RMBS are typically large institutions, such as pension funds, mutual funds, insurance companies, hedge funds and REITs. The agreement that governs the packaging of residential mortgage loans into a pool, the servicing of such residential mortgage loans and the terms of the RMBS issued by the securitization trust is often referred to as a pooling and servicing agreement. As a result of transformations in the securitization process, non-bank originators have gained significant market share in the residential mortgage market. Indicative of this trend, during the first half of 2020, 64% of 2020 U.S. mortgage loans were originated by non-bank originators, up from 57% for the period from 2018 through 2019.

Origination volumes were elevated in 2020, bolstered significantly by record refinance volumes amidst historically low rates. With mortgage rates at historical lows, a significant portion of existing mortgage borrowers were able to lower their coupon and monthly mortgage payments and achieve financial savings through refinancing. As of January 2021, the third quarterMortgage Bankers Association (“MBA”) forecasted total 2020 U.S. origination volume of 2018, approximately $8.0$3.6 trillion, an increase of 59% from $2.3 trillion in 2019. 60% of 2020 activity is forecasted to be refinance volume, up from 46% in 2019.

Looking forward, the $10.8MBA forecasts origination volumes to remain elevated in 2021 and 2022 at $2.7 trillion and $2.2 trillion, respectively, though refinance activity is forecasted to normalize to 42% and 26%, respectively, during those years. The purchase market is expected to grow 11% and 3% over the next two years to $1.6 trillion, driven by growth of one-to-four family residentialhousehold formations and homeownership rates. Current estimates forecast that roughly 80% of all 30-year GSE mortgages outstanding had been securitized, accordingare “in-the-money” to Inside refinance, with at least a 50 bp incentive to do so.

Mortgage Finance. Approximately $7.2 trillion were Agency RMBS accordingoriginators generate their revenue primarily from the sale of originated loans to Inside Mortgage Finance,the GSEs and the balanceGovernment National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”). In 2020, gain on sale margins were Non-Agency RMBS.particularly attractive, driven by significant demand for loans amidst industry capacity constraints whereby demand for new loans exceeded the industry’s ability to fulfill the demand.

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

FollowingThe servicer landscape today remains highly fragmented, with 40% of servicing concentrated across the credit crisis,top 10 servicers. Servicers generally derive their income from servicing income – unpaid principal balances of servicing balances times the servicing fee. Servicing income consists of the contractual fees earned for servicing loans and includes ancillary revenue such as late fees and modification incentives. Servicing fees associated with an MSR can be segregated into i) a base servicing fee and ii) an excess servicing fee. The base servicing fee, along with ancillary income and other revenue, is designed to cover costs incurred to service the specified pool plus a reasonable margin. The remaining servicing fee is considered excess. Servicing income is affected by the size of the servicing portfolio, both UPB and number of loans, delinquency rates and cost to service per loan.

In light of the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, the need for “high-touch” non-bank specialty servicers has increased as loan performance declined, delinquencies rose and servicing complexities broadened.borrowers have sought solutions to their COVID-19 related hardships. Specialty servicers have proven more willing and betterwell equipped to perform the operationally intensive activities (e.g., collections, foreclosure avoidance and loan workouts) required to service credit-sensitive loans. Since the onset of COVID-19 in March 2020, forbearance activity on our serviced portfolio has increased, rising to 10.5% as of the end of the second quarter 2020 before trending lower to 3.4% as of December 31, 2020. As COVID-19 related hardships end, specialty servicers like ours seek to help homeowners move into permanent solutions such as repayment plans, deferments, and loan modifications.

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

NewRez originates or purchases residential mortgage loan market is commonly further divided into a numberloans conforming to the underwriting standards of categories based on certainthe Agencies (“Agency” loans), government-insured residential mortgage loans insured by the FHA, VA and USDA, and non-conforming loans through its SMART Loan Series. NewRez’s SMART Loan Series is a non-QM loan characteristics, includingproduct that provides a variety of options for highly qualified borrowers who fall outside the creditspecific requirements of Agency mortgage loans. Through this platform, NewRez underwrites quality ofloans that meet its guidelines and pricing models for borrowers that fall just outside the qualified mortgage requirement such as self-employed borrowers, bank statement or asset qualifiers, real estate investors, prime borrowers, and more. While NewRez’s origination of Non-QM loans paused at the typesonset of institutions that originate or finance such loans. While there are no universally accepted definitions,COVID-19 in the residential mortgage loan market is commonly dividedfirst quarter of 2020, the Company restarted production of Non-QM loans in the first quarter of 2021. We believe the outlook for Non-QM remains strong in 2021 supported by market participants into the following categories.pent up demand for Non-QM products and a growing population of Non-QM borrowers. In 2020, 66 % of NewRez’s funded production was Agency, 33% was Government, 1% was Non-Agency and 1% was Non-QM.

New Residential is one of the largest owners of MSRs in the United States according to Inside Mortgage Finance with $536 billion UPB of full and excess MSRs. Our MSR portfolio as of December 31, 2020 was down 15% from $627 billion UPB as of December 31, 2019. A mortgage servicing right (“MSR”)MSR provides a mortgage servicer with the right to service a pool of residential mortgage loans in exchange for a portion of the interest payments made on the underlying residential mortgage loans. This amount typically ranges from 25 to 50 basis points (“bps”) times the unpaid principal balance (“UPB”) of the residential mortgage loans, plus ancillary income and custodial interest. An MSR is made up of two components: a basic fee and an excess MSR (“Excess MSR”). The basic fee is the amount of compensation for the performance of servicing duties (including advance obligations), and the Excess MSR is the amount that exceeds the basic fee. Ownership of an MSR requires the owner to be a licensed mortgage servicer. An owner of an Excess MSR is not required to be licensed, and is not required to assume any servicing duties, advance obligations or liabilities associated with the loan pool underlying the MSR unless otherwise specified through agreement.

Servicer advances are a customary feature of residential mortgage securitization transactions and represent one of the duties for which a servicer is compensated through the basic fee component of the related MSR, since the advances are non-interest bearing. Servicer

bearing, servicer advances are generally reimbursable cash payments made by a servicer (i) when the borrower fails to make scheduled payments due on a residential mortgage loan or (ii) to support the value of the collateral property. Our interests in servicer advances include the following:

Servicer advances typically fall into one of three categories:

The purpose of the advances is to provide liquidity, rather than credit enhancement, to the underlying residential mortgage securitization transaction. Servicer advances are considered “top of the waterfall” and are generally permitted to be repaid from amounts received with respect to the related residential mortgage loan, including payments from the borrower or amounts received from the liquidation of the property securing the loan, which is referred to as “loan-level recovery.”

Residential mortgage servicing agreements generally require a servicer to make advances in respect of serviced residential mortgage loans unless the servicer determines in good faith that the advance would not be ultimately recoverable from the proceeds of the related residential mortgage loan or the mortgaged property. In many cases, if the servicer determines that an advance previously made would not be recoverable from these sources, or if such advance is not recovered when the loan is repaid or related property is liquidated, then, the servicer is, most often, entitled to withdraw funds from the trustee custodial account for payments on the serviced residential mortgage loans to reimburse the applicable advance. This is what is often referred to as a “general collections backstop.” Under certain circumstances, a servicer may also be reimbursed for an otherwise unrecoverable advance by a GSE, with respect to loans in Agency RMBS (defined below). See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business—Servicer advances may not be recoverable or may take longer to recover than we expect, which could cause us to fail to achieve our targeted return on our Servicer Advance Investments or MSRs.”

We have also purchaseinvested in rated bonds backed by securitized pools of servicer advances issued through transactions sponsored by mortgage servicers. Servicer advance securitizations are generally rated “Master Trust” structures with multiple series of notes and one or more variable funding notes sharing in the same pool of collateral. Each note class has a specific advance rate and rating. We may pursue similar investments as opportunities arise.

Residential mortgage loans are often packaged into pools held in securitization entities which issue securities (RMBS) collateralized by such loans. Agency RMBS are RMBS issued or guaranteed by an Agency. “Non-Agency”Non-Agency RMBS are issued by either public trusts or private label securitization (“PLS”) entities. We invest in both Agency RMBS and Non-Agency RMBS.

Agency RMBS generally offer more stable cash flows and historically have been subject to lower credit risk and greater price stability than the other types of residential mortgage investments we intend to target. Our ownership of Agency RMBS is generally meant to act as a hedge to our large MSR portfolio. The Agency RMBS that we may acquire could be secured by fixed-rate mortgages, adjustable-rate mortgages or hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages. More information about certain types of Agency RMBS in which we have invested or may invest is set forth below.

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

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

We believe that in many Non-Agency RMBS vehicles there is a meaningful discrepancy between the value of the Non-Agency RMBS and the recovery value of the underlying collateral. We pursue opportunities in structured transactions that enable us to realize identified excesses of collateral value over related RMBS value, particularly through the acquisition and execution of call rights. WeAs of December 31, 2020 we control the call rights on Non-Agency deals with a total UPB of approximately $126.0$80.0 billion.

We believe a call right is profitable when the aggregate underlying loan value is greater than the sum of par on the loans minus any discount from acquired bonds plus expenses, including outstanding advances, related to such exercise. Generally, profit with respect to our call rights is generated by:

We believe there may be attractive opportunities to invest in portfolios of non-performing and other residential mortgage loans, along with foreclosed properties. We source non-performing residential mortgage loans primarily from two sources: call transactions (discussed above) and third-party pool purchases. In certain of these investments, we would expect to acquire the loans at a deep discount to their face amount, and we (either independently or with a servicing co-investor) would seek to resolve the loans atresulting in a substantially higher valuation. In other investments, we would expect to acquire the foreclosed property at a deep discount to its value,market values, and we would seek to monetize the discount through property improvements and sales. In addition, we may seek to employ leverage to increase returns, either through traditional financing lines or if available,securitization.

With respect to our Ginnie Mae securitization options.and servicing activities, in order to affect a loan modification, we are required to buy the loan out of the securitization. Once the modification is completed, the loan can be sold into a new Ginnie Mae securitization. We may also choose to exercise our unilateral right to repurchase loans that are at least three month delinquent out of a Ginnie Mae securitization (as an alternative to continuing to advance principal and interest payments to the holders of the Ginnie Mae securities). Such repurchases are commonly referred to as Early Buyouts, or EBOs. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of Ginnie Mae loans that are three or more months delinquent has been elevated relative to historical averages. As a result, our purchases of EBO loans in 2020 has increased.

In addition, as discussed above, our wholly owned subsidiary originates conventional, government-insured and nonconforming residential mortgage loans for sale and securitization. The GSEs or Ginnie MaeAgencies guarantee the conventional and government insuredgovernment-insured mortgage securitizations and mortgage investors issue nonconforming loans may be sold through the issuance of private label mortgage securitizations, whilesecuritizations.

We also believe there will continue to be attractive opportunities in the single family rental (“SFR”) sector given robust industry fundamentals driven by the continued strength in the U.S. residential housing market. In 2020, SFR demonstrated resiliency amidst challenges and market volatility due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.; SFR operators continued to experience very strong demand for their homes with occupancy rates approaching all-time highs. De-densification, de-urbanization, supply shortages, rising home prices and declining housing affordability have all resulted in elevated demand for affordable SFR housing. The outlook for rent growth is positive. Younger generations' preference for mobility and flexibility also lend to stronger demand for renting over owning a home. Approximately 35% of houses are currently renter-occupied, and that number is expected to grow in the coming years. The SFR market remains largely fragmented as only approximately 2% of the SFR market is owned by institutional investors. We believe this fragmentation creates significant opportunity for our business. Using our established experience with residential real estate and our consumer-facing expertise, we generally retain the rightbelieve we are well-positioned to service the underlyingbenefit from these compelling trends in SFR. With our exposure to SFR, we are ultimately able to provide a variety of housing solutions to U.S. consumers, spanning both lending and leasing a home.

We may pursue other types of investments as the market evolves, such as our opportunistic investmentinvestments in consumer loans. Our Manager makes decisions about our investments in accordance with broad investment guidelines adopted by our board of directors. Accordingly, we may, without a stockholder vote, change our target asset classes and acquire a variety of assets that

may differ

For more detail, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Our Portfolio.” The following table summarizes our consolidated investment portfolio as of December 31, 20182020 (dollars in thousands):

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

With respect to our Excess MSRs, Servicer Advance Investments, RMBS, residential mortgage loans and consumer loans, we engage third-party servicers to service the loans, or loans underlying the investments, as applicable. With respect to our MSRs and servicer advances receivable, NRM is the named servicer but it engages a subservicerresidential mortgage loan investments, we engage both subsidiaries and third-party servicers to service the loans underlying the investments. We refer to the servicers and subservicers we engage as our “Servicing Partners.” As of December 31, 2018,2020, our Servicing Partners include, but are not limited to: Nationstar Mortgageto, Mr. Cooper, LoanCare, LLC (“Nationstar”LoanCare”), Ocwen Financial Corporation (together(“OFC” and, together with its subsidiaries, including Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, “Ocwen”), PHH Corporation (together with its subsidiaries, including PHH Mortgage Corporation, and together with OFC and the Ocwen entities acquired by PHH Corporation as a result of its merger with OFC, “PHH”), Ditech Financial LLC (“Ditech,” a subsidiary of Ditech Holding Corporation), Flagstar Bank, FSB (“Flagstar”), New Penn Financial LLC (“New Penn”),NewRez, Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (“SLS”) and Fay Financial LLC (“Fay”), OneMain Holdings, Inc. (“OneMain”), and the Consumer Loan Seller (Note 9(as defined in Note 10 to our Consolidated Financial Statements). In addition, NRM is referred to as a “Servicing Partner” when contextually applicable.

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

Our objective is to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for our stockholders, which at times incorporates the use of leverage. The amount of leverage we deploy for a particular investment depends upon an assessment of a variety of factors, which may include the anticipated liquidity and price volatility of our assets; the gap between the duration of assets and liabilities, including hedges; the availability and cost of financing the assets; our opinion of the creditworthiness of financing counterparties; the health of the U.S. economy and the residential mortgage and housing markets; our outlook on interest rates; the credit quality of the loans underlying our investments; and our outlook for asset spreads relative to financing costs. In 2020, we significantly altered our financing profile across MSRs, residential loans and Non-Agency residential securities. In particular, we moved away from short term repurchase agreements for these assets and into longer term financing arrangements including capital markets notes. As evidence of this, during 2020 we priced 17 securitizations for $8.0 billion across MSRs, Servicer Advances, Reperforming Loans, Non-Performing Loans, Consumer Loans and Non-QM loans. See “Management’s

Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Debt Obligations” for further details about our debt obligations.

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

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and exclusion from registration under the Investment Company1940 Act, of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), we may also engage in a variety of interest rate management techniques that seek on the one hand to mitigate the influence of interest rate changes on the values of some of our assets and on the other hand help us achieve our risk management objectives. The U.S. federal income tax rules applicable to REITs may require us to implement certain of these techniques through a domestic taxable REIT subsidiary (“TRS”) that is fully subject to U.S. federal corporate income taxation. Our interest rate management techniques may include:

We entered into a Management Agreement with our Manager, an affiliate of Fortress, which was subsequently amended and restated on August 1, 2013, on August 5, 2014 and on May 7, 2015, pursuant to which our Manager provides for a management team and other professionals who are responsible for implementing our business strategy, subject to the supervision of our board of directors. Our Manager is responsible for, among other things, (i) setting investment criteria in accordance with broad investment guidelines adopted by our board of directors, (ii) sourcing, analyzing and executing acquisitions, (iii) providing financial and accounting management services and (iv) performing other duties as specified in the Management Agreement.

We pay our Manager an annual management fee equal to 1.5% of our gross equity. Gross equity is generally the equity that was transferred to us by Drive Shack upon spin-off on May 15, 2013, on the distribution date, plus total net proceeds from common and preferred stock offerings, plus certain capital contributions to subsidiaries, less capital distributions and repurchases of common stock.

Our Manager is entitled to receive annual incentive compensation in an amount equal to the product of (A) 25% of the dollar amount by which (1)(a) the funds from operations before the incentive compensation, excluding funds from operations from investments in the Consumer Loan Companies and any unrealized gains or losses from mark-to-market valuation changes on investments and debt (and any deferred tax impact thereof), per share of common stock, plus (b) earnings (or losses) from the Consumer Loan Companies computed on a level-yield basis (such that the loans are treated as if they qualified as loans acquired with a discount for credit quality as set forth in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) No. 310-30, as such codification was in effect on June 30, 2013) as if the Consumer Loan Companies had been acquired at their GAAP basis on the distribution date, plus earnings (or losses) from equity method investees invested in Excess MSRs as if such equity method investees had not made a fair value election, plus gains (or losses) from debt restructuring and gains (or losses) from sales of property, and plus non-routine items, minus amortization of non-routine items, in each case per share of common stock, exceed (2) an amount equal to (a) the weighted average of the book value per share of the equity that was transferred to us by Drive Shack on the distribution date and the prices per share of our common stock in any offerings by us (adjusted for prior capital dividends or capital distributions) multiplied by (b) a simple interest rate of 10% per annum, multiplied by (B) the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding.

“Funds from operations” means net income (computed in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”)), excluding gains (losses) from debt restructuring and gains (or losses) from sales of property, plus depreciation on real estate assets, and after adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures. Funds from operations is computed on an unconsolidated basis. The computation of funds from operations may be adjusted at the direction of our independent directors based on changes in, or certain applications of, GAAP. Funds from operations is determined from the date of our separation from Drive Shack and without regard to Drive Shack’s prior performance. Funds from operations does not represent and should not be considered as a substitute for, or superior to, net income, or as a substitute for, or superior to, cash flows from operating activities, each as determined in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and our calculation of this measure may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies.

The initial term of our Management Agreement expired on May 15, 2014, and the Management Agreement was and will be renewed automatically each year for an additional one-year period unless (i) a majority consisting of at least two-thirds of our independent directors or a simple majority of the holders of outstanding shares of our common stock, agree that there has been unsatisfactory performance that is materially detrimental to us or (ii) a simple majority of our independent directors agree that the management fee payable to our Manager is unfair; provided, that we shall not have the right to terminate our Management Agreement under clause (ii) foregoing if the Manager agrees to continue to provide the services under the Management Agreement at a fee that our independent directors have determined to be fair.

If we elect not to renew our Management Agreement at the expiration of any such one-year extension term as set forth above, our Manager will be provided with 60 days’ prior notice of any such termination. In the event of such termination, we would be required to pay the termination fee. The termination fee is a fee equal to the sum of (1) the amount of the management fee during the 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination, and (2) the “Incentive Compensation Fair Value Amount.” The Incentive Compensation Fair Value Amount is an amount equal to the incentive compensation that would be paid to the Manager if our

Fortress, through its affiliates, and principals of Fortress held 2.4 million shares of our common stock, and Fortress, through its affiliates, held options relating to an additional 6.512.0 million shares of our common stock, representing approximately 2.6%3.5 % of our common stock on a fully diluted basis, as of December 31, 2018.2020.

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

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

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

We may engage in the purchase and sale of investments.

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

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

Although we have established certain policies and procedures designed to mitigate conflicts of interest, there can be no assurance that these policies and procedures will be effective in doing so. It is possible that actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest could give rise to investor dissatisfaction, litigation or regulatory enforcement actions.

One or more of our officers and directors have responsibilities and commitments to entities other than us. We do not have a policy that expressly prohibits our directors, officers, security holders or affiliates from engaging for their own account in business activities of the types conducted by us. Moreover, our certificate of incorporation provides that if Drive Shack or Fortress or any of their officers, directors or employees acquire knowledge of a potential transaction that could be a corporate opportunity, they have no duty, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to offer such corporate opportunity to us, our stockholders or our affiliates. In the event that any of our directors and officers who is also a director, officer or employee of Drive Shack or Fortress acquires knowledge of a corporate opportunity or is offered a corporate opportunity, provided that this knowledge was not acquired solely in such person’s capacity as a director or officer of New Residential and such person acts in good faith, then to the fullest extent permitted by law such person is deemed to have fully satisfied such person’s fiduciary duties owed to us and is not liable to us if Drive Shack or Fortress, or their affiliates, pursues or acquires the corporate opportunity or if such person did not present the corporate opportunity to us. However, subject to the terms of our certificate of incorporation, our code of business conduct and ethics prohibits the directors, officers and employees of our Manager from engaging in any transaction that involves an actual conflict of interest with us. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Manager—There are conflicts of interest in our relationship with our Manager.”

Our key agreements, including our Management Agreement, were negotiated among related parties, and their respective terms, including fees and other amounts payable, may not be as favorable to us as terms negotiated with unaffiliated parties. Our independent directors may not vigorously enforce the provisions of our Management Agreement against our Manager. For example, our independent directors may refrain from terminating our Manager because doing so could result in the loss of key personnel. The structure of the Manager’s compensation arrangement may have unintended consequences for us. We have agreed to pay our Manager a management fee that is not tied to our performance and incentive compensation that is based entirely on our performance. The management fee may not sufficiently incentivize our Manager to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for us, while the performance-based incentive compensation component may cause our Manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of earnings, including through the use of leverage, at the expense of other objectives, such as preservation of capital, to achieve

We may compete with entities affiliated with our Manager or Fortress including Nationstar, for certain target assets. From time to time, affiliates of Fortress may focus on investments in assets with a similar profile as our target assets that we may seek to acquire. These affiliates may have meaningful purchasing capacity, which may change over time depending upon a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, available equity capital and debt financing, market conditions and cash on hand. Fortress has two funds primarily focused on investing in Excess MSRs with approximately $0.4$0.7 billion in investments in aggregate. We have co-invested with these funds in Excess MSRs and may do so with similar Fortress funds in the future. Fortress funds generally have a fee structure similar to ours, but the fees actually paid will vary depending on the size, terms and performance of each fund.

Our Manager may determine, in its discretion, to make a particular investment through an investment vehicle other than us. Investment allocation decisions will reflect a variety of factors, such as a particular vehicle’s availability of capital (including financing), investment objectives and concentration limits, legal, regulatory, tax and other similar considerations, the source of the investment opportunity and other factors that the Manager, in its discretion, deems appropriate. Our Manager does not have an obligation to offer us the opportunity to participate in any particular investment, even if it meets our investment objectives.

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

conformity with the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code, and that our manner of operation will enable us to meet the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT.

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

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

If the value of securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we own, exceeds the 40% test under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act (e.g., the value of our interests in the taxable REIT subsidiaries that hold servicer advances investmentsServicer Advance Investments and

For purposes of the foregoing, we treat our interests in certain of our wholly owned and majority owned subsidiaries, which constitutes more than 60% of the value of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis, as non-investment securities because such subsidiaries qualify for exclusion from the definition of an investment company under the 1940 Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act (the “Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion”). The Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion is available for entities “primarily engaged” in the business of “purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” The Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion generally requires that at least 55% of these subsidiaries’ assets comprise qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of each of their portfolios must comprise qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets under the 1940 Act. Maintenance of our exclusion under the 1940 Act generally limits the amount of our Section 3(c)(5)(C) subsidiaries’ investments in non-real estate assets to no more than 20% of our total assets.

In satisfying the 55% requirement under the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion, based on guidance from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and its staff, we treat Agency RMBS issued with respect to an underlying pool of mortgage loans in

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

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

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

In August 2011, the SEC issued a concept release soliciting public comments on a wide range of issues relating to companies, which are typically REITs, engaged in the business of acquiring mortgages and mortgage-related instruments and that rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, including the nature of the assets that qualify for purposes of the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion and whether such REITs should be regulated in a manner similar to investment companies. Therefore, there can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of REITs, or guidance from the SEC or its staff regarding the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If we or our subsidiaries fail to maintain an exclusion or exception from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (a) change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (b) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or (c) register as an investment company, any of which could negatively affect the value of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to make distributions.

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

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

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

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

In the face of this competition, we expect to take advantage of the experience of members of our management team and their industry expertise which may provide us with a competitive advantage and help us assess potential risks and determine

appropriate pricing for certain potential acquisitions of our target assets. In addition, we expect that these relationships will enable us to compete more effectively for attractive acquisition opportunities. However, we may not be able to achieve our business goals or expectations due to the competitive risks that we face.

We are managed by our Manager pursuant to the Management Agreement between our Manager and us. All of our officers are employees of our Manager or an affiliate of our Manager. As of December 31, 2018, our employees include (i) three part-time2020, we have 5,667 employees of NRM and (ii) 2,357which 5,471 are employees of our wholly ownedwholly-owned subsidiary Shellpoint Partners LLC. We also engage contractors and consultants. None of our employees is represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good and we focus heavily on employee engagement. We have invested substantial time and resources in building our team, and our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, and to help ensure the success of our Company. To facilitate attraction and retention, we strive to make our Company a diverse, inclusive, and safe workplace, with opportunities for our employees to grow and develop their careers, supported by strong compensation and benefits programs. During 2020, Shellpoint hired over 1,600 employees, an increase of 42% compared to the year prior. In addition, as we transitioned primarily to remote work in March 2020 due to the onset of COVID-19, approximately 1,200 of those employees where recruited, hired, and trained virtually, with 500 of those hires considered permanent remote employees.

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

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

New Residential files annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ‘‘Exchange Act’’), with the SEC. Our SEC filings are available to the public from the SEC’s internet site at http://www.sec.gov.

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

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

We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully operate our business or implement our operating policies and strategies. There can be no assurance that we will be able to generate sufficient returns to pay our operating expenses, satisfy our debt obligations and make satisfactory distributions to our stockholders, or any distributions at all. Our results of operations and our ability to make or sustain distributions to our stockholders depend on several factors, including the availability of opportunities to acquire attractive assets, the level and volatility of interest rates, the performance of our origination and servicing businesses, the availability of adequate short- and long-term financing, the ongoing impact of COVID-19 on our business, and conditions in the real estate market, the financial markets and economic conditions.

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

Our assumptions could differ materially from actual results. The use of different estimates or assumptions in connection with the valuation of these investments could produce materially different fair values for such investments, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations. The ultimate realization of the value of our investments may be materially different than the fair values of such investments as reflected in our Consolidated Financial Statements as of any particular date.

We refer to our MSRs, mortgage servicing rightsMSR financing receivables, Excess MSRs, and the basebasic fee portion of the related MSRs included in our Servicer Advance Investments, collectively, as our interests in MSRs.

With respect to our investments in interests in MSRs, residential mortgage loans and consumer loans, and a portion of our RMBS, when the related loans are prepaid as a result of a refinancing or otherwise, the related cash flows payable to us will either, in the case of interest-only RMBS, and/or interests in MSRs, cease (unless, in the case of our interests in MSRs, the loans are recaptured upon a refinancing), or we will cease to receive interest income on such investments, as applicable. Borrowers under residential mortgage loans and consumer loans are generally permitted to prepay their loans at any time without penalty. Our expectation of prepayment rates is a significant assumption underlying our cash flow projections. Prepayment rate is the measurement of how quickly borrowers pay down the UPB of their loans or how quickly loans are otherwise brought current, modified, liquidated or charged off. A significant increase in prepayment rates could materially reduce the ultimate cash flows and/or interest income, as applicable, we receive from our investments, and we could ultimately receive substantially less than what we paid for such assets, decreasing the fair value of our investments. If the fair value of our investment portfolio decreases, we would generally be required

The values of our investments are highly sensitive to changes in interest rates. Historically, the value of MSRs, which underpin the value of our investments, including interests in MSRs, has increased when interest rates rise and decreased when interest rates decline due to the effect of changes in interest rates on prepayment rates. The significant dislocation in the financial markets due to COVID-19 has caused, among other things, a sharp decrease in interest rates. Prepayment rates could increase as a result of a general economic recovery or other factors, which would reduce the value of our interests in MSRs.

Moreover, delinquency rates have a significant impact on the value of our investments. When the UPB of mortgage loans cease to be a part of the aggregate UPB of the serviced loan pool (for example, when delinquent loans are foreclosed on or repurchased, or otherwise sold, from a securitized pool), the related cash flows payable to us, as the holder of an interest in the related MSR, cease. Depending on how long the pandemic continues to disrupt the economy and employment, our servicing business could experience our cost-to-service increase as we deal with higher delinquencies and foreclosures. However, we have not seen a deterioration in 30-day or 60-day delinquencies at this time. An increase in delinquencies will generally result in lower revenue because typically we will only collect on our interests in MSRs from GSEsthe Agencies or mortgage owners for performing loans. An increase in delinquencies with respect to the loans underlying our servicer advances could also result in a higher advance balance and the need to obtain additional financing, which we may not be able to do on favorable terms or at all. Additionally, in the case of residential mortgage loans, consumer loans and RMBS that we own, an increase in foreclosures could result in an acceleration of repayments, resulting in a decrease in interest income. Alternatively, increases in delinquencies and defaults could also adversely affect our investments in RMBS, residential mortgage loans and/or consumer loans if and to the extent that losses are suffered on residential mortgage loans, consumer loans or, in the case of RMBS, the residential mortgage loans underlying such RMBS. Accordingly, if delinquencies are significantly greater than expected, the estimated fair value of these investments could be diminished. As a result, we could suffer a loss, which would have a negative impact on our financial results.

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

If the applicable Servicing Partner does not meet anticipated recapture targets, the servicing cash flow on a given pool could be significantly lower than projected, which could have a material adverse effect on the value of our MSRs or Excess MSRs and consequently on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Our recapture target for our current recapture agreements is stated in the table in Note 1213 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

NRM isWe are generally required to make servicer advances related to the pools of loans for which it iswe are the named servicer. In addition, we have agreed (in the case of Nationstar,Mr. Cooper, together with certain third-party investors) to purchase from certain of the servicers and subservicers that we engage, which we refer to as our “Servicing Partners,” all servicer advances related to certain loan pools, as a result of which we are entitled to amounts representing repayment for such advances. During any period in which a borrower is not making payments, a servicer is generally required under the applicable servicing agreement to advance its own funds to cover the principal and interest remittances due to investors in the loans, pay property taxes and insurance premiums to third parties, and to make payments for legal expenses and other protective advances. The servicer also advances funds to maintain, repair and market real estate properties on behalf of investors in the loans.

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

As home values change, the servicer may have to reconsider certain of the assumptions underlying its decisions to make advances. In certain situations, its contractual obligations may require the servicer to make certain advances for which it may not be reimbursed. In addition, when a residential mortgage loan defaults or becomes delinquent, the repayment of the advance may be delayed until the residential mortgage loan is repaid or refinanced, or a liquidation occurs. To the extent that one of our Servicing Partners fails to recover the servicer advances in which we have invested, or takes longer than we expect to recover such advances, the value of our investment could be adversely affected and we could fail to achieve our expected return and suffer losses.

Servicing agreements related to residential mortgage securitization transactions generally require a residential mortgage servicer to make servicer advances in respect of serviced residential mortgage loans unless the servicer determines in good faith that the servicer advance would not be ultimately recoverable from the proceeds of the related residential mortgage loan, mortgaged property or mortgagor. In many cases, if the servicer determines that a servicer advance previously made would not be recoverable from these sources, the servicer is entitled to withdraw funds from the related custodial account in respect of payments on the related pool of serviced mortgages to reimburse the related servicer advance. This is what is often referred to as a “general collections backstop.” The timing of when a servicer may utilize a general collections backstop can vary (some contracts require actual liquidation of the related loan first, while others do not), and contracts vary in terms of the types of servicer advances for which reimbursement from a general collections backstop is available. Accordingly, a servicer may not ultimately be reimbursed if both (i) the payments from related loan, property or mortgagor payments are insufficient for reimbursement, and (ii) a general collections backstop is not available or is insufficient. Also, if a servicer improperly makes a servicer advance, it would not be entitled to reimbursement. While we do not expect recovery rates to vary materially during the term of our investments, there can be no assurance regarding future recovery rates related to our portfolio.

The value of substantially all of our investments is dependent on the satisfactory performance of servicing obligations by the related mortgage servicer or subservicer, as applicable. The duties and obligations of mortgage servicers are defined through contractual agreements, generally referred to as Servicing Guides in the case of GSEs, the MBS Guide in the case of Ginnie Mae or pooling agreements, securitization servicing agreements, pooling and servicing agreements or other similar agreements (collectively, “PSAs”) in the case of Non-Agency RMBS (collectively, the “Servicing Guidelines”). The duties of the subservicers we engage to service the loans underlying our MSRs are contained in subservicing agreements with our subservicers. The duties of a subservicer under a subservicing agreement may not be identical to the obligations of the servicer under Servicing Guidelines. Our interests in MSRs are subject to all of the terms and conditions of the applicable Servicing Guidelines. Servicing Guidelines generally provide for the possibility of termination of the contractual rights of the servicer in the absolute discretion of the owner of the mortgages being serviced (or the required bondholders in the case of Non-Agency RMBS). Under the Agency Servicing Guidelines, the servicer may be terminated by the applicable Agency for any reason, “with” or “without” cause, for all or any portion of the loans being serviced for such Agency. In the event mortgage owners (or bondholders) terminate the servicer (regardless of whether such servicer is a subsidiary of New Residential or one of its subservicers), the related interests in MSRs would under most circumstances lose all value on a going forward basis. If the servicer is terminated as servicer for any Agency pools, the servicer’s right to service the related mortgage loans will be extinguished and our interests in related MSRs will likely lose all of their value. Any recovery in such circumstances, in the case of Non-Agency RMBS, will be highly conditioned and may require, among other things, a new servicer willing to pay for the right to service the applicable residential mortgage loans while assuming responsibility for the origination and prior servicing of the residential mortgage loans. In addition, in the case of Agency MSRs, any payment received from a successor servicer will be applied first to pay the applicable Agency for all of its claims and costs, including claims and costs against the servicer that do not relate to the residential mortgage loans for which we own interests in the MSRs. A termination could also result in an event of default under our related financings. It is expected that any termination of a servicer by mortgage owners (or bondholders) would take effect across all mortgages of such mortgage owners (or bondholders) and would not be limited to a particular vintage or other subset of mortgages. Therefore, it is possible that all investments with a

a result, we could be materially and adversely affected if one of our Servicing Partners is unable to adequately carry out its duties as a result of:

In the ordinary course of business, our Servicing Partners are subject to numerous legal proceedings, federal, state or local governmental examinations, investigations or enforcement actions which could adversely affect their reputation and their liquidity, financial position and results of operations. Mortgage servicers, including certain of our Servicing Partners, have experienced heightened regulatory scrutiny and enforcement actions, and our Servicing Partners could be adversely affected by the market’s perception that they could experience, or continue to experience, regulatory issues. See “—Certain of our Servicing Partners have been and are subject to federal and state regulatory matters and other litigation, which may adversely impact us.” In light of recent regulatory actions against Ocwen, we cannot assure you that Ocwen will not be removed as servicer by the Agencies or by bondholders, which could have a material adverse effect on our interests in MSRs serviced or subserviced by Ocwen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have entered into an agreement for Ocwen to transfer its remaining interests in $110.0 billion of UPB of non-AgencyNon-Agency MSRs to NRM (the “Ocwen Subject MSRs”) to our subsidiaries, New Residential Mortgage LLC (“NRM”) and NewRez LLC (“NewRez”). We currently hold certain interests in the Ocwen Subject MSRs (including all servicer advances) pursuant to existing agreements with Ocwen. The transfer of Ocwen’s interests in the Ocwen Subject MSRs is subject to numerous consents of third parties and certain actions by rating agencies. While certain of the Ocwen Subject MSRs have previously transferred to NRM,our subsidiaries, there is no assurance that we will be able to obtain such consents in order to transfer Ocwen’s interests in the Ocwen Subject MSRs to NRM.our subsidiaries. We have spent considerable time and resources, and incurred substantial costs, in connection with the negotiation of such transaction and we will incur such costs even if the Ocwen Subject MSRs cannot be transferred to NRM.our subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2018,2020, MSRs representing approximately $36.1$66.7 billion UPB of underlying loans have

subject to the Ocwen Transaction were transferred pursuant to the New Ocwen Agreements (Note 56 to our Consolidated Financial Statements).

We may be unable to become the named servicer in respect of certain Non-Agency MSRs. If we are unable to become the named servicer in respect of any of the Ocwen Subject MSRs in accordance with the Ocwen Transaction, Ocwen has the right, in certain circumstances, to purchase from us our interests in the related MSRs. In such a situation, we will be required to sell Ocwen those assets (and will cease to receive income on those investments) and/or may be required to refinance certain indebtedness on terms that are not favorable to us.

Our ability to acquire MSRs may be subject to the approval of various third parties and such approvals may not be provided on a timely basis or at all, or may be conditioned upon our satisfaction of significant conditions which could require material expenditures and the provision of significant representations, warranties and indemnities. Such third parties may include the Agencies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) with respect to agency MSRs, and securitization trustees, master servicers, depositors, rating agencies and insurers, among others, with respect to non-agencyNon-Agency MSRs. The process of obtaining any such approvals required for a servicing transfer, especially with respect to non-agencyNon-Agency MSRs, may be time consuming and costly and we may be required to expend significant internal resources and incur material expenses in connection with such transactions. Further, the parties from whom approval is necessary may require that we provide significant representations and warranties and broad indemnities as a condition to their consent, which such representations and warranties and indemnities, if given, may expose us to material risks in addition to those arising under the related servicing agreements. Consenting parties may also charge a material consent fee and may require that we reimburse them for the legal expenses they incur in connection with their approval of the servicing transfer, which such expenses may include costs relating to substantial contract due diligence and may be significant. No assurance can be given that we will be able to successfully obtain the consents required to acquire the MSRs that we have agreed to purchase. 

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

Our interests in MSRs relate to loans serviced or subserviced, as applicable, by our Servicing Partners. As disclosed in Notes 4, 5, 6, and 67 of our Consolidated Financial Statements, certain of our Servicing Partners service and/or subservice a substantial portion of our interests in MSRs. If any of these Servicing Partners is the named servicer of the related MSR and is terminated, its servicing performance deteriorates, or in the event that any of them files for bankruptcy, our expected returns on these investments could be severely impacted. In addition, a large portion of the loans underlying our Non-Agency RMBS are serviced by certain of our Servicing Partners. We closely monitor our Servicing Partners’ mortgage servicing performance and overall operating performance, financial condition and liquidity, as well as their compliance with applicable regulations and Servicing Guidelines. We have various information, access and inspection rights in our agreements with these Servicing Partners that enable us to monitor aspects of their financial and operating performance and credit quality, which we periodically evaluate and discuss with their management. However, we have no direct ability to influence our Servicing Partners’ performance, and our diligence cannot prevent, and may not even help us anticipate, the termination of any such Servicing Partners’ servicing agreement or a severe deterioration of any of our Servicing Partners’ servicing performance on our portfolio of interests in MSRs.

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

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

Repayment of the outstanding amount of servicer advances (including payment with respect to deferred servicing fees) may be subject to delay, reduction or set-off in the event that the related Servicing Partner breaches any of its obligations under the Servicing Guidelines, including, without limitation, any failure of such Servicing Partner to perform its servicing and advancing functions

We are subject to substantial other operational risks associated with our Servicing Partners in connection with the financing of servicer advances. In our current financing facilities for servicer advances, the failure of our Servicing Partner to satisfy various covenants and tests can result in an amortization event and/or an event of default. We have no direct ability to control our Servicing Partners’ compliance with those covenants and tests. Failure of our Servicing Partners to satisfy any such covenants or tests could result in a partial or total loss on our investment.

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

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

Our interests in MSRs relate to loans serviced or subserviced, as applicable, by our Servicing Partners. As disclosed in Notes 4, 5, 6, and 67 of our Consolidated Financial Statements, certain of our Servicing Partners service and/or subservice a substantial portion of our interests in MSRs. In addition, NationstarMr. Cooper is currently the servicer for a significant portion of our loans, and the loans underlying our RMBS. If the servicing performance of one of our subservicers deteriorates, if one of our subservicers files for bankruptcy or if one of our subservicers is otherwise unwilling or unable to continue to subservice MSRs for us, our expected returns on these investments would be severely impacted. In addition, if a subservicer becomes subject to a regulatory consent order or similar enforcement proceeding, that regulatory action could adversely affect us in several ways. For example, the regulatory action could result in delays of transferring servicing from an interim subservicer to our designated successor subservicer or cause the subservicer’s performance to degrade. Any such development would negatively affect our expected returns on these investments, and such effect could be materially adverse to our business and results of operations. We closely monitor each subservicer’s mortgage servicing performance and overall operating performance, financial condition and liquidity, as well as its compliance with applicable regulations and GSE servicing guidelines. We have various information, access and inspection rights in our respective agreements with our subservicers that enable us to monitor their financial and operating performance and credit quality, which we periodically evaluate and discuss with each subservicer’s respective management. However, we have no direct ability to influence each subservicer’s performance, and our diligence cannot prevent, and may not even help us anticipate, a severe deterioration of each subservicer’s respective servicing performance on our MSR portfolio.

In addition, a material portion of the consumer loans in which we have invested are serviced by OneMain. If OneMain is terminated as the servicer of some or all of these portfolios, or in the event that it files for bankruptcy or is otherwise unable to continue to service such loans, our expected returns on these investments could be severely impacted.

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

Our risk-management processes may not accurately anticipate the impact of market stress or counterparty financial condition, and as a result, we may not take sufficient action to reduce our risks effectively. Although we will monitor our credit exposures, default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect, foresee or evaluate.evaluate, such as a pandemic like COVID-19. In addition, concerns about, or a default by, one large participant could lead to significant liquidity problems for other participants, which may in turn expose us to significant losses.

In the event of a counterparty default, particularly a default by a major investment bank or Servicing Partner, we could incur material losses rapidly, and the resulting market impact of a major counterparty default could seriously harm our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. In the event that one of our counterparties becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy, our ability to eventually recover any losses suffered as a result of that counterparty’s default may be limited by the liquidity of the counterparty or the applicable legal regime governing the bankruptcy proceeding. On February 11, 2019, Ditech Holding Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries, including Ditech, our subservicer, filed voluntary petitions under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

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

We believe that a mortgage servicer’s transfer to us of MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or any other asset transferred pursuant to a related purchase agreement, including loans, constitutes a sale of such assets, in which case such assets would not be part of such servicer’s bankruptcy estate. The servicer (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding), a bankruptcy trustee appointed in such servicer’s bankruptcy proceeding, or any other party in interest, however, might assert in a bankruptcy proceeding MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or any other assets transferred to us pursuant to the related purchase agreement were not sold to us but were instead pledged to us as security for such servicer’s obligation to repay amounts paid by us to the servicer pursuant to the related purchase agreement. We generally create and perfect security interests with respect to the MSRs that we acquire, though we do not do so in all instances. If such assertion were successful, all or part of the MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or any other asset transferred to us pursuant to the related purchase agreement would constitute property of the bankruptcy estate of such servicer, and our rights against the servicer could be those of a secured creditor with a lien on such present and future assets. Under such circumstances, cash proceeds generated from our collateral would constitute “cash collateral” under the provisions of the U.S. bankruptcy laws. Under U.S. bankruptcy laws, the servicer could not use our cash collateral without either (a) our consent or (b) approval by the bankruptcy court, subject to providing us with “adequate protection” under the U.S. bankruptcy laws. In addition, under such circumstances, an issue could arise as to whether certain of these assets generated after the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding would constitute after-acquired property excluded from our entitlement pursuant to the U.S. bankruptcy laws.

If the purchases pursuant to the related purchase agreement are recharacterized as secured financings as set forth above, we nevertheless created and perfected security interests with respect to the MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances and other assets that we may have purchased from such servicer by including a pledge of collateral in the related purchase agreement and filing financing statements in appropriate jurisdictions. Nonetheless, to the extent we have created and perfected a security interest, our security interests may be challenged and ruled unenforceable, ineffective or subordinated by a bankruptcy court, and the amount of our claims may be disputed so as not to include all MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances to be collected. If this were to occur, or if we have not created a security interest, then the servicer’s obligations to us with respect to purchased MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or other assets would be deemed unsecured obligations, payable from unencumbered assets to be shared among all of such servicer’s unsecured creditors. In addition, even if the security interests are found to be valid and enforceable, if a bankruptcy court determines that the value of the collateral is less than such servicer’s underlying obligations to us, the difference between such value and the total amount of such

obligations will be deemed an unsecured “deficiency” claim and the same result will occur with respect to such unsecured claim. In addition, even if the security interest is found to be valid and enforceable, such servicer would have the right to use the proceeds of our collateral subject to

If one of our Servicing Partners were to file, or to become the subject of, a bankruptcy proceeding under the United States Bankruptcy Code or similar state insolvency laws, and our security interest (if any) is declared unenforceable, ineffective or subordinated, payments previously made by a servicer to us pursuant to the related purchase agreement may be recoverable on behalf of the bankruptcy estate as preferential transfers. Among other reasons, a payment could constitute a preferential transfer if a court were to find that the payment was a transfer of an interest of property of such servicer that:

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

The mortgage servicer (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding), a bankruptcy trustee appointed in such servicer’s bankruptcy proceeding, or another party in interest could also claim that such servicer’s transfer to us of MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or other assets or such servicer’s agreement to incur obligations to us under the related purchase agreement was a fraudulent conveyance. Under U.S. bankruptcy laws and similar state insolvency laws, transfers made or obligations incurred could be voided if, among other reasons, such servicer, at the time it made such transfers or incurred such obligations: (a) received less than reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration for such transfer or incurrence and (b) either (i) was insolvent at the time of, or was rendered insolvent by reason of, such transfer or incurrence; (ii) was engaged in, or was about to engage in, a business or transaction for which the assets remaining with such servicer were an unreasonably small capital; or (iii) intended to incur, or believed that it would incur, debts beyond its ability to pay such debts as they mature. If any transfer or incurrence is determined to be a fraudulent conveyance, our Servicing Partner, as applicable (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding), or a bankruptcy trustee on such Servicing Partner’s behalf would be entitled to recover such transfer or to avoid the obligation previously incurred.

 

A mortgage servicer (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding) or a bankruptcy trustee appointed in such servicer’s or counterparty’s bankruptcy proceeding could seek to reject the related purchase agreement or subservicing agreement with a counterparty and thereby terminate such servicer’s or counterparty’s obligation to service the MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or any other asset transferred pursuant to such purchase agreement, and terminate our right to acquire additional assets under such purchase agreement and our right to require such servicer to use commercially reasonable efforts to transfer servicing. If the bankruptcy court approved the rejection, we would have a claim against such servicer or counterparty for any damages from the rejection, and the resulting transfer of our interests in MSRs or servicing of the MSRs relating to our Excess MSRs to another subservicer may result in significant cost and may negatively impact the value of our interests in MSRs.

Our ability to terminate a subservicer or to require a mortgage servicer to use commercially reasonable efforts to transfer servicing rights to a new servicer would be subject to the automatic stay in such servicer’s bankruptcy proceeding. To enforce this right, we

If one of our Servicing Partners were to file, or to become the subject of, a bankruptcy proceeding under the United States Bankruptcy Code or similar state insolvency laws, such Servicing Partner (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding) or the bankruptcy trustee could reject its subservicing agreement with us and terminate such Servicing Partner’s obligation to service the MSRs, servicer advances or loans in which we have an investment. Any claim we have for damages arising from the rejection of a subservicing agreement would be treated as a general unsecured claim for purposes of distributions from such Servicing Partner’s bankruptcy estate.

If one of our Servicing Partners were to file, or to become the subject of, a bankruptcy proceeding under the United States Bankruptcy Code, such Servicing Partner could be terminated as servicer (with bankruptcy court approval) or could discontinue servicing, in which case there is no assurance that we would be able to continue receiving payments and transfers in respect of the interests in MSRs, servicer advances and other assets purchased under the related purchase agreement or subserviced under the related subservicing agreement. Even if we were able to obtain the servicing rights or terminate the related subservicer, we may need to engage an alternate subservicer (which may not be readily available on acceptable terms or at all) or negotiate a new subservicing agreement with such servicer, which presumably would be on less favorable terms to us. Any engagement of an alternate subservicer by us would require the approval of the related RMBS trustees or the Agencies, as applicable.

Even if we are successful in arguing that we own the interests in MSRs, servicer advances and other assets, including loans, purchased under the related purchase agreement, we may need to seek relief in the bankruptcy court to obtain turnover and payment of amounts relating to such assets, and there may be difficulty in recovering payments in respect of such assets that may have been commingled with other funds of such servicer.

If any of our Servicing Partners were to file for bankruptcy or become the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding, it could result in an event of default under certain of our financing facilities that would require the immediate paydown of such facilities. In this scenario, we may not be able to comply with our obligations to purchase interests in MSRs and servicer advances under the related purchase agreements. Notwithstanding this inability to purchase, the related seller may try to force us to continue making such purchases. If it is determined that we are in breach of our obligations under our purchase agreements, any claims that we may have against such related seller may be subject to offset against claims such seller may have against us by reason of this breach.

On November 29, 2017,As a wholly owned subsidiaryresult of NRM (the “Shellpoint Purchaser”) entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (as amended on July 3, 2018, the “SPA”) withour previously disclosed acquisitions of Shellpoint Partners LLC (“Shellpoint”),and assets from the sellers party thereto and Shellpoint Services LLC, as the original representativebankruptcy estate of the sellers and later replaced by Shellpoint Representative LLC as the replacement representative of the sellers, pursuant to which, the Shellpoint Purchaser purchased all of the outstanding equity interests of Shellpoint (the “Shellpoint Acquisition”). On July 3, 2018, we consummated the Shellpoint Acquisition. Shellpoint subsidiaries, nowDitech, among others, certain subsidiaries of New Residential perform various mortgage and real estate related services, and have origination and servicing operations, which entailsentail borrower-facing activities and employing personnel. Since the closing of the Shellpoint Acquisition, Shellpoint entities have maintainedPrior to such operations and, in the future, we expect such operations to continue. Neitheracquisitions, neither we nor any of our subsidiaries hashave previously originated or serviced loans directly, and owning entities that perform these and other operations could expose us to risks similar to those of our Servicing Partners, as well as various new and/or increased indirect regulatoryother risks, including, but not limited to those pertaining to:

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

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

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

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

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

Following the 2018 Congressional elections, a level of heightened uncertainty exists with respect to the future of regulation of mortgage lending and servicing, including the future of the Dodd-Frank Act and CFPB. We cannot predict the specific legislative or executive actions that may result or what actions federal or state regulators may implement or requiremight take in response to potential changes to currentthe Dodd-Frank Act or to the federal regulatory environment generally. Such actions could impact the mortgage industry generally or us specifically, could impact our relationships with other regulators, and could adversely impact our business.

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

New regulatory and legislative measures, or changes in enforcement practices, including those related to the technology we use, could, either individually or in the aggregate, require significant changes to our business practices, impose additional costs on us, limit our product offerings, limit our ability to efficiently pursue business opportunities, negatively impact asset values or

reduce our revenues. Accordingly, any of the foregoing could materially and compensation thatadversely affect our business and our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

S&P, Moody’s and Fitch rates NewRez as a residential loan servicer, and a downgrade, or failure to maintain, any of our investments in MSRs.servicer ratings could:

Any of the UPB for fixed rate mortgages. As has been widely publicized, in September 2011, the FHFA announced that a Joint Initiative on Mortgage Servicing Compensation was seeking public comment on two alternative mortgage servicing compensation structures detailed in a discussion paper. Changes to the MSA structureabove could significantly impactadversely affect our business, in negative ways that we cannot predict or protect against. For example, the elimination of a MSA could radically change the mortgage servicing industryfinancial condition and could severely limit the supply of interests in MSRs available for sale. In addition, a removal of, or reduction in, the MSA could significantly reduce the recapture rate on the affected loan portfolio, which would negatively affect the investment return on our interests in MSRs. We cannot predict whether any changes to current MSA rules will occur or what impact any changes will have on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.operations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interests in MSRs are highly illiquid and may be subject to numerous restrictions on transfers, including without limitation the receipt of third-party consents. For example, the Servicing Guidelines of a mortgage owner may require that holders of Excess MSRs obtain the mortgage owner’s prior approval of any change of direct ownership of such Excess MSRs. Such approval may be withheld for any reason or no reason in the discretion of the mortgage owner. Moreover, we have not received and do not expect to receive any assurances from any GSEs that their conditions for the sale by us of any interests in MSRs will not change. Therefore, the potential costs, issues or restrictions associated with receiving such GSEs’ consent for any such dispositions by us cannot be determined with any certainty. Additionally, interests in MSRs may entail complex transaction structures and the risks associated with the transactions and structures are not fully known to buyers or sellers. As a result of the foregoing, we may be unable to locate a buyer at the time we wish to sell interests in MSRs. There is some risk that we will be required to dispose of interests in MSRs either through an in-kind distribution or other liquidation vehicle, which will, in either case, provide little or no economic benefit to us, or a sale to a co-investor in the interests in MSRs, which may be an affiliate. Accordingly, we cannot provide any assurance that we will obtain any return or any benefit of any kind from any disposition of interests in MSRs. We may not benefit from the full term of the assets and for the aforementioned reasons may not receive any benefits from the disposition, if any, of such assets.

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

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

Our real estate and other securities have historically been valued based primarily on third-party quotations, which are subject to significant variability based on the liquidity and price transparency created by market trading activity. A disruption in these trading markets, including due to COVID-19, could reduce the trading for many real estate and other securities, resulting in less transparent prices for those securities, which would make selling such assets more difficult. Moreover, a decline in market demand for the types of assets that we hold would make it more difficult to sell our assets. If we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our illiquid investments quickly, we may realize significantly less than the amount at which we have previously valued these investments.

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

Changes in these factors are difficult to predict, and a change in one factor can affect other factors. For example, the full extent of the impact and effects of COVID-19 will depend on future developments, including, among other factors, the duration and spread of the outbreak, along with related travel advisories, quarantines and restrictions, the recovery time of the disrupted supply chains and industries, the impact of labor market interruptions, the impact of government interventions and uncertainty with respect to the duration of the global economic slowdown. Further, at various points in time, increased default rates in the subprime mortgage market played a role in causing credit spreads to widen, reducing availability of credit on favorable terms, reducing liquidity and price transparency of real estate related assets, resulting in difficulty in obtaining accurate mark-to-market valuations, and causing a negative perception of the state of the real estate markets and of REITs generally. Market conditions could be volatile or could deteriorate as a result of a variety of factors beyond our control with adverse effects to our financial condition.

The geographic distribution of the loans underlying, and collateral securing, our investments, including our interests in MSRs, servicer advances, Non-Agency RMBS and loans, exposes us to risks associated with the real estate and commercial lending industry in general within the states and regions in which we hold significant investments. These risks include, without limitation: possible declines in the value of real estate; risks related to general and local economic conditions; possible lack of availability of mortgage funds; overbuilding; extended vacancies of properties; increases in competition, property taxes and operating expenses; changes in zoning laws; increased energy costs; unemployment; costs resulting from the clean-up of, and

liability to third parties for damages resulting from, environmental problems; casualty or condemnation losses; uninsured damages from floods, hurricanes, earthquakes or other natural disasters; and changes in interest rates.

As of December 31, 2018,2020, 24.8% and 21.7%21.2% of the total UPB of the residential mortgage loans underlying our Excess MSRs and MSRs, respectively, was secured by properties located in California, which are particularly susceptible to natural disasters such as fires, earthquakes and mudslides. 7.8%7.5% and 6.9%7.4% of the total UPB of the residential mortgage loans underlying our Excess MSRs and MSRs, respectively, was secured by properties located in Florida, which are particularly susceptible to natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. In addition, certain states have continued to report increasing rates of COVID-19 infections. As of December 31, 2018, 37.7%2020, 33.7% of the collateral securing our Non-Agency RMBS was located in the Western U.S., 23.8%26.3% was located in the Southeastern U.S., 19.7%23.2% was located in the Northeastern U.S., 10.6%11.4% was located in the Midwestern U.S. and 6.8%5.3% was located in the Southwestern U.S. We were unable to obtain geographical information for 1.4%0.1% of the collateral. As a result of this concentration, we may be more susceptible to adverse developments in those markets than if we owned a more geographically diverse portfolio. To the extent any of the foregoing risks arise in states and regions where we hold significant investments, the performance of our investments, our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition could suffer a material adverse effect.

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

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

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

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

Even in states where servicers have not suspended foreclosure proceedings or have lifted (or will soon lift) any such delayed foreclosures, servicers, including our Servicing Partners, have faced, and may continue to face, increased delays and costs in the foreclosure process. For example, the current legislative and regulatory climate could lead borrowers to contest foreclosures that they would not otherwise have contested under ordinary circumstances, and servicers may incur increased litigation costs if the validity of a foreclosure action is challenged by a borrower. In general, regulatory developments with respect to foreclosure practices could result in increases in the amount of servicer advances and the length of time to recover servicer advances, fines or increases in operating expenses, and decreases in the advance rate and availability of financing for servicer advances. This would lead to increased borrowings, reduced cash and higher interest expense which could negatively impact our liquidity and

profitability. Although the terms of our Servicer Advance Investments contain adjustment mechanisms that would reduce the amount of performance fees payable to the related Servicing Partner if servicer advances exceed pre-determined amounts, those fee reductions may not be sufficient to cover the expenses resulting from longer foreclosure timelines.

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

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

While we believe that the sellers and servicers would be in violation of the applicable Servicing Guidelines to the extent that they have improperly serviced mortgage loans or improperly executed documents in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings, or do not comply with the terms of servicing contracts when deciding whether to apply principal reductions, it may be difficult, expensive, time consuming and, ultimately, uneconomic for us to enforce our contractual rights. While we cannot predict exactly how the servicing and foreclosure matters or the resulting litigation or settlement agreements will affect our business, there can be no assurance that these matters will not have an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

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

The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property is dependent upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors may impair borrowers’ abilities to repay their loans, including, among other things, changes in the borrower’s employment status, changes in national, regional or local economic conditions, changes in interest rates or the availability of credit

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

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

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

Real estate and other securities are subject to changes in credit spreads. Credit spreads measure the yield demanded on securities by the market based on their credit relative to a specific benchmark. The significant dislocation in the financial markets due to COVID-19 has caused, among other things, credit spread widening.

Fixed rate securities are valued based on a market credit spread over the rate payable on fixed rate U.S. Treasuries of like maturity. Floating rate securities are valued based on a market credit spread over LIBOR and are affected similarly by changes in LIBOR spreads. As of December 31, 2018, 72.8%2020, 30.3% of our Non-Agency RMBS Portfolio consisted of floating rate securities and 27.2%69.7% consisted of fixed rate securities, and 100.0% of our Agency RMBS portfolio consisted of fixed rate securities, based on the amortized cost basis of all securities (including the amortized cost basis of interest-only and residual classes). Excessive supply of these securities combined with reduced demand will generally cause the market to require a higher yield on these securities, resulting in the use of a higher, or “wider,” spread over the benchmark rate to value such securities. Under such conditions, the value of our real estate and other securities portfolios would tend to decline. Conversely, if the spread used to value such securities were to decrease, or “tighten,” the value of our real estate and other securities portfolio would tend to increase. Such changes in the market value of our real estate securities portfolios may affect our net equity, net income or cash flow directly through their impact on unrealized gains or losses on available-for-sale securities, and therefore our ability to realize gains on such securities, or indirectly through their impact on our ability to borrow and access capital. Widening credit spreads could cause the net unrealized gains on our securities and derivatives, recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income or retained earnings, and therefore our book value per share, to decrease and result in net losses.

In general, residential mortgage loans may be prepaid at any time without penalty. Prepayments result when homeowners/mortgagors satisfy (i.e., pay off) the mortgage upon selling or refinancing their mortgaged property. When we acquire a particular loan or security, we anticipate that the loan or underlying residential mortgage loans will prepay at a projected rate which, together with expected coupon income, provides us with an expected yield on such investments. If we purchase assets at a premium to par

Prepayment rates on loans are influenced by changes in mortgage and market interest rates and a variety of economic, geographic, political and other factors, all of which are beyond our control. Consequently, such prepayment rates cannot be predicted with certainty and no strategy can completely insulate us from prepayment or other such risks. In periods of declining interest rates, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, prepayment rates on mortgage loans generally increase. If general interest rates decline at the same time, the proceeds of such prepayments received during such periods are likely to be reinvested by us in assets yielding less than the yields on the assets that were prepaid. In addition, the market value of our loans and real estate and other securities may, because of the risk of prepayment, benefit less than other fixed-income securities from declining interest rates.

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

Prepayments, which are the primary feature of mortgage backed securities that distinguish them from other types of bonds, are difficult to predict and can vary significantly over time. As the holder of the security, on a monthly basis, we receive a payment equal to a portion of our investment principal in a particular security as the underlying mortgages are prepaid. In general, on the date each month that principal prepayments are announced (i.e., factor day), the value of our real estate related security pledged as collateral under our repurchase agreements is reduced by the amount of the prepaid principal and, as a result, our lenders will typically initiate a margin call requiring the pledge of additional collateral or cash, in an amount equal to such prepaid principal, in order to re-establish the required ratio of borrowing to collateral value under such repurchase agreements. Accordingly, with respect to our Agency RMBS, the announcement on factor day of principal prepayments is in advance of our receipt of the related scheduled payment, thereby creating a short-term receivable for us in the amount of any such principal prepayments. However, under our repurchase agreements, we may receive a margin call relating to the related reduction in value of our Agency RMBS and, prior to receipt of this short-term receivable, be required to post additional collateral or cash in the amount of the principal prepayment on or about factor day, which would reduce our liquidity during the period in which the short-term receivable is outstanding. As a result, in order to meet any such margin calls, we could be forced to sell assets in order to maintain liquidity. Forced sales under adverse market conditions may result in lower sales prices than ordinary market sales made in the normal course of business. If our real estate and other securities were liquidated at prices below our amortized cost (i.e., the cost basis) of such assets, we would incur losses, which could adversely affect our earnings. In addition, in order to continue to earn a return on this prepaid principal, we must reinvest it in additional real estate and other securities or other assets; however, if interest rates decline, we may earn a lower return on our new investments as compared to the real estate and other securities that prepay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many of our servicer advance financing arrangements are provided by financial institutions with whom we have substantial relationships. Some of our servicer advance financing arrangements entail the issuance of term notes to capital markets investors with whom we have little or no relationships or the identities of which we may not be aware and, therefore, we have no ability to control or monitor the identity of the holders of such term notes. Holders of such term notes may have or may take positions - for example, “short” positions in our stock or the stock of our servicers - that could be benefited by adverse events with respect to us or our Servicing Partners. If any holders of term notes allege or assert noncompliance by us or the related Servicing Partner under our servicer advance financing arrangements in order to realize such benefits, we or our Servicing Partners, or our ability to maintain servicer advance financing on favorable terms, could be materially and adversely affected.

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

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

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

on a long-term basis, we may be required to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at an inopportune time or price.

In January 2006, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision released a finalized framework for calculating minimum capital requirements for market risk, which became effective in January 2019. In the final proposal, capital requirements would overall be meaningfully higher than current requirements, but are less punitive than the previous December 2014 proposal. However,

Our portfolio includes an investment in the consumer loan sector. Although many of the risks applicable to consumer loans are also applicable to residential mortgage loans, and thus the type of risks that we have experience managing, there are nevertheless substantial risks and uncertainties associated with engaging in a different category of investment.

The ability of borrowers to repay the consumer loans we invest in may be adversely affected by numerous personal factors, including unemployment, divorce, major medical expenses or personal bankruptcy. General factors, including an economic downturn, high energy costs or acts of God or terrorism, may also affect the financial stability of borrowers and impair their ability or willingness to repay the consumer loans in our investment portfolio. Furthermore, our returns on our consumer loan investments are dependent on the interest we receive exceeding any losses we may incur from defaults or delinquencies. The relatively higher interest rates paid by consumer loan borrowers could lead to increased delinquencies and defaults, or could lead to financially stronger borrowers prepaying their loans, thereby reducing the interest we receive from them, while financially weaker borrowers become delinquent or default, either of which would reduce the return on our investment or could cause losses.

In the event of any default under a loan in the consumer loan portfolio in which we have invested, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral securing the loan, if any, and the principal and accrued interest of the loan. In addition, our investments in consumer loans may entail greater risk than our investments in residential mortgage loans, particularly in the case of consumer loans that are unsecured or secured by assets that depreciate rapidly. In such cases, repossessed collateral for a defaulted consumer loan may not provide an adequate source of repayment for the outstanding loan and the remaining deficiency often does not warrant further substantial collection efforts against the borrower. Further, repossessing personal property securing a consumer loan can present additional challenges, including locating the collateral and taking possession of it. In addition, borrowers under consumer loans may have lower credit scores. There can be no guarantee that we will not suffer unexpected losses on our investments as a result of the factors set out above, which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

In addition, a portion of our investment in consumer loans is secured by second and third liens on real estate. When we hold the second or third lien, another creditor or creditors, as applicable, holds the first and/or second, as applicable, lien on the real estate that is the subject of the security. In these situations our second or third lien is subordinate in right of payment to the first and/or second, as applicable, holder’s right to receive payment. Moreover, as the servicer of the loans underlying our consumer loan portfolio is not able to track the default status of a senior lien loan in instances where we do not hold the related first mortgage, the value of the second or third lien loans in our portfolio may be lower than our estimates indicate.

Finally, one of our consumer loan investments is held through LoanCo, in which we hold a minority, non-controlling interest. We do not control LoanCo and, as a result, LoanCo may make decisions, or take risks, that we would otherwise not make, and LoanCo may not have access to the same management and financing expertise that we have. Failure to successfully manage these risks could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.

In recent years consumer advocacy groups and some media reports have advocated governmental action to prohibit or place severe restrictions on the types of short-term consumer loans in which we have invested. Such consumer advocacy groups and media reports generally focus on the annual percentage rate to a consumer for this type of loan, which is compared unfavorably to the interest typically charged by banks to consumers with top-tier credit histories.

The fees charged on the consumer loans in the portfolio in which we have invested may be perceived as controversial by those who do not focus on the credit risk and high transaction costs typically associated with this type of investment. If the negative characterization of these types of loans becomes increasingly accepted by consumers, demand for the consumer loan products in which we have invested could significantly decrease. Additionally, if the negative characterization of these types of loans is accepted by legislators and regulators, we could become subject to more restrictive laws and regulations in the area.

Certain jurisdictions require a license to purchase, hold, enforce or sell residential mortgage loans and/or MSRs. We currently hold some but not all such licenses. In the event that any licensing requirement is applicable to us, and we do not hold such licenses, there can be no assurance that we will obtain such licenses or, if obtained, that we will be able to maintain them. Our failure to obtain or maintain such licenses could restrict our ability to invest in loans in these jurisdictions if such licensing requirements are applicable. With respect to mortgage loans, in lieu of obtaining such licenses, we may contribute our acquired residential mortgage loans to one or more wholly owned trusts whose trustee is a national bank, which may be exempt from state licensing requirements. We have formed one or more subsidiaries to apply for certain state licenses. If these subsidiaries obtain the required licenses, any trust holding loans in the applicable jurisdictions may transfer such loans to such subsidiaries, resulting in these loans being held by a state-licensed entity. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain the requisite licenses in a timely manner or at all or in all necessary jurisdictions, or that the use of the trusts will reduce the requirement for licensing. In addition, even if we obtain necessary licenses, we may not be able to maintain them. Any of these circumstances could limit our ability to invest in residential mortgage loans or MSRs in the future and have a material adverse effect on us.

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

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

Furthermore, we anticipate that, in most cases, for any period during which our floating rate assets are not match funded with respect to maturity, the income from such assets may respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our

borrowings. Because of this dynamic, interest income from such investments may rise more slowly than the related interest expense, with a consequent decrease in our net income. Interest rate fluctuations resulting in our interest expense exceeding interest income would result in operating losses for us from these investments.

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

Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political considerations and other factors beyond our control. Our primary interest rate exposures relate to our interests in MSRs, RMBS, loans, derivatives and any floating rate debt obligations that we may incur. Changes in interest rates, including changes in expected interest rates or “yield curves,” affect our business in a number of ways. Changes in the general level of interest rates can affect our net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income earned on our interest-

Recently,Since March 2020, the Federal Reserve has increased the benchmarkmaintained interest rate and indicated that there may be further increasesrates close to zero in the future.response to COVID-19 pandemic concerns. In the event of a significant rising interest rate environment and/or economic downturn, however, loan and collateral defaults may increase and result in credit losses that would adversely affect our liquidity and operating results.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We intend to continue to conduct our operations so that neither we nor any of our subsidiaries are required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act. We believe we will not be considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act because we will not engage primarily, or hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily, in the business of investing,

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

If the value of securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we own, exceeds the 40% test under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act (e.g., the value of our interests in the taxable REIT subsidiaries that hold Servicer Advance Investments and are not excluded from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(5)(A), (B) or (C) of the 1940 Act increases significantly in proportion to the value of our other assets), or if one or more of such subsidiaries fail to maintain an exclusion or exception from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either (a) to substantially change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company or (b) to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, either of which could have an adverse effect on us and the market price of our securities. As discussed above, for purposes of the foregoing, we generally treat our interests in our SLS Servicer Advance Investment and our subsidiaries that hold consumer loans as investment securities because these subsidiaries presently rely on the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act. If we or any of our subsidiaries were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, the registered entity would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to capital structure (including the ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the 1940 Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting, proxy disclosure and other rules and regulations that would significantly change our operations.

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

For purposes of the foregoing, we treat our interests in certain of our wholly owned and majority owned subsidiaries, which constitute more than 60% of the value of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis, as non-investment securities because such subsidiaries qualify for exclusion from the definition of an investment company under the 1940 Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. The Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion is available for entities “primarily engaged” in the business of “purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” The Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion generally requires that at least 55% of these subsidiaries’ assets must comprise qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of each of their portfolios must comprise qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets under the 1940 Act. We expect each of our subsidiaries relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) to rely on guidance published by the SEC staff or on our analyses of such guidance to determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets. However, the SEC’s guidance was issued in accordance with factual situations that may be substantially different from the factual situations each of our subsidiaries may face, and much of the guidance was issued more than 20 years ago. No assurance can be given that the SEC staff will concur with the classification of each of our subsidiaries’ assets. In addition, the SEC staff may, in the future, issue further guidance that may require us to re-classify some of our subsidiaries’ assets for purposes of qualifying for an exclusion from regulation under the 1940 Act. For example, the SEC and its staff have not published guidance with respect to the treatment of whole pool Non-Agency RMBS for purposes of the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion. Accordingly, based on our own judgment and analysis of the guidance from the SEC and its staff identifying Agency whole pool certificates as qualifying real estate assets under Section 3(c)(5)(C), we treat whole pool Non-Agency RMBS issued with respect to an underlying pool of mortgage loans in which our subsidiary relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) holds all of the certificates issued by the pool as qualifying real estate assets. Based on our own judgment and analysis of the guidance from the SEC and its staff with respect to analogous assets, we treat Excess MSRs for which we do not own the related servicing rights as real estate-related assets for purposes of satisfying the 80% test under the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion. If we are required to re-classify any of our subsidiaries’ assets, including those subsidiaries holding whole pool Non-Agency RMBS and/or Excess MSRs, such

subsidiaries may no longer be in compliance with the exclusion from the definition of an “investment company” provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, and in turn, we may not satisfy the requirements to

In August 2011, the SEC issued a concept release soliciting public comments on a wide range of issues relating to companies engaged in the business of acquiring mortgages and mortgage-related instruments and that rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. Therefore, there can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of REITs, or guidance from the SEC or its staff regarding the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If we or our subsidiaries fail to maintain an exclusion or exception from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (a) change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (b) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or (c) register as an investment company, any of which could negatively affect the value of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to make distributions. In addition, if we or any of our subsidiaries were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, the registered entity would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to capital structure (including the ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the 1940 Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting, proxy disclosure and other rules and regulations that would significantly change our operations.

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

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

There is not anticipated to be an active market for most of the assets in which we will invest. In the absence of market comparisons, we will use other pricing methodologies, including, for example, models based on assumptions regarding expected trends, historical trends following market conditions believed to be comparable to the then current market conditions and other factors believed at the time to be likely to influence the potential resale price of, or the potential cash flows derived from, an investment. Such methodologies may not prove to be accurate and any inability to accurately price assets may result in adverse consequences for us. A valuation is only an estimate of value and is not a precise measure of realizable value. Ultimate realization of the market value of a private asset depends to a great extent on economic and other conditions beyond our control. Further, valuations do not necessarily represent the price at which a private investment would sell since market prices of private investments can only be determined by negotiation between a willing buyer and seller. If we were to liquidate a particular private investment, the realized value may be more than or less than the valuation of such asset as carried on our books.

As has been widely publicized, theThe SEC, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) and other regulatory bodies that establish the accounting rules applicable to us have recently proposed or enacted a wide array of changes to accounting rules. Moreover,may, in the future, these regulators may propose additional changes that we do not currently anticipate. Changes to accounting rules that apply to us could significantly impact our business or our reported financial performance in negative ways that we cannot predict or protect against. We cannot predict whether any changes to current accounting rules will occur or what impact any codified changes will have on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition, directly or through their impact on our Servicing Partners or counterparties.

We believe the risks associated with our business are more severe during periods in which an economic slowdown or recession is accompanied by declining real estate values, as was the case in 2008. The COVID-19 pandemic has had and could continue to have, an adverse impact on economic and market conditions and could result in a prolonged period of economic slowdown. Declining real estate values generally reduce the level of new mortgage loan originations, since borrowers often use increases in the value of their existing properties to support the purchase of, or investment in, additional properties. Borrowers may also be less able to pay principal and interest on our loans or the loans underlying our securities, interests in MSRs and servicer advances, if the real estate economy weakens. Further, declining real estate values significantly increase the likelihood that we will incur losses on our investments in the event of default because the value of our collateral may be insufficient to cover our basis. Any sustained period of increased payment delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect our net interest income from the assets in our portfolio, which would significantly harm our revenues, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, business prospects and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

ManyCertain aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act areremain subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on us and, more generally, the financial services and mortgage industries. Additionally, we cannot predict whether there will be additional proposed laws or reforms that would affect us, whether or when such changes may be adopted, how such changes may be interpreted and enforced or how such changes may affect us. However, the costs of complying with any additional laws or regulations could have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

As part of our business strategy, we regularly evaluate acquisitions of what we believe are complementary assets. Identifying and achieving the anticipated benefits of such acquisitions is subject to a number of uncertainties, including, without limitation, whether we are able to acquire the assets, within our parameters, integrate the acquired assets and manage the assumed liabilities efficiently. It is possible that the integration process could take longer than anticipated and could result in additional and unforeseen expenses, the disruption of our ongoing business, processes and systems, or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures, practices and policies, any of which could adversely affect our ability to achieve the anticipated benefits of such acquisitions. There may be increased risk due to integrating the assets into our financial reporting and internal control

systems. Difficulties in adding the assets into our business could also result in the loss of contract counterparties or other persons with whom we conduct business and potential disputes or litigation with contract counterparties or other persons with whom we or such counterparties conduct business. We could also be adversely affected by any issues attributable to the related seller’s operations that arise or are based on events or actions that occurred prior to the closing of such acquisitions. Completion of the integration process is subject to a number of uncertainties, and no assurance can be given that the anticipated benefits will be realized in their entirety or at all or, if realized, the timing of their realization. Failure to achieve these anticipated benefits could result in increased costs or decreases in the amount of expected revenues and could adversely affect our future business, financial condition, operating results and cash flows. Due to the costs of engaging in a number of acquisitions, we may also have difficulty completing more acquisitions in the future.

In connection with certain MSR acquisitions, servicing is transferred from the seller to a subservicer appointed by us. The ability to integrate and service the assets acquired will depend in large part on the success of our subservicer’s integration of expanded servicing capabilities with its current operations. We may fail to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits of these transactions

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

HLSS acquired assets and assumed liabilities could be adversely affected as a result of events or conditions that occurred or existed before the closing of the HLSS Acquisition. Adverse changes in the assets or liabilities we have acquired or assumed, respectively, as part of the HLSS Acquisition, could occur or arise as a result of actions by HLSS or Ocwen, legal or regulatory developments, including the emergence or unfavorable resolution of pre-acquisition loss contingencies, deteriorating general business, market, industry or economic conditions, and other factors both within and beyond the control of HLSS or Ocwen. We are subject to a variety of risks as a result of our dependence on Servicing Partners, including, without limitation, the potential loss of all of the value of our Excess MSRs in the event that the servicer of the underlying loans is terminated by the mortgage loan owner or RMBS bondholders. A significant decline in the value of HLSS assets or a significant increase in HLSS liabilities we have acquired could adversely affect our future business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. HLSS is subject to a number of other risks and uncertainties, including regulatory investigations and legal proceedings against HLSS, and others with whom HLSS conducted business. Moreover, any insurance proceeds received with respect to such matters may be inadequate to cover the associated losses. Adverse developments at Ocwen, including liquidity issues, ratings downgrades, defaults under debt agreements, servicer rating downgrades, failure to comply with the terms of PSAs, termination under PSAs, Ocwen bankruptcy proceedings and additional regulatory issues and settlements, including

those described above, could have a material adverse effect on us. See “—We rely heavily on our Servicing Partners to achieve our investment objective and have no direct ability to influence their performance.”

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

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

When a residential mortgage loan is in foreclosure, the servicer is generally required to continue to advance delinquent principal and interest to the securitization trust and to also make advances for delinquent taxes and insurance and foreclosure costs and the upkeep of vacant property in foreclosure to the extent it determines that such amounts are recoverable. These servicer advances are generally recovered when the delinquency is resolved. Foreclosure moratoria or other actions that lengthen the foreclosure process increase the amount of servicer advances, lengthen the time it takes for reimbursement of such advances and increase the costs incurred during the foreclosure process. In addition, servicer advance financing facilities generally contain provisions that limit the eligibility of servicer advances to be financed based on the length of time that servicer advances are outstanding, and, as a result, an increase in foreclosure timelines could further increase the amount of servicer advances that need to be funded from the related servicer’s own capital. Such increases in foreclosure timelines could increase the need for capital to fund servicer advances, which would increase our interest expense, delay the collection of interest income or servicing revenue until the foreclosure has been resolved and, therefore, reduce the cash that we have available to pay our operating expenses or to pay dividends. For more information, see “—We could be materially and adversely affected by past events, conditions or actions with respect to HLSS or Ocwen” above.

In certain of these circumstances, the related Servicing Partner may be terminated without any right to compensation for its loss, other than the right to be reimbursed for any outstanding servicer advances as the related loans are brought current, modified, liquidated or charged off. So long as we are in compliance with our obligations under our servicing agreements and purchase agreements, if we or one of our Servicing Partners is terminated as servicer, we may have the right to receive an indemnification payment from the applicable Servicing Partner, even if such termination related to servicer termination events or events of default existing at the time of any transaction with such Servicing Partner. If one of our Servicing Partners is terminated as servicer under a PSA, we will lose any investment related to such Servicing Partner’s MSRs. If we or such Servicing Partner is terminated as servicer with respect to a PSA and we are unable to enforce our contractual rights against such Servicing Partner, or if such Servicing Partner is unable to make any resulting indemnification payments to us, if any such payment is due and payable, it may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, ability to make distributions, liquidity and financing arrangements, including our servicer advance financing facilities, and may make it more difficult for us to acquire additional interests in MSRs in the future.

Our financing facilities require us to make certain representations and warranties regarding the assets that collateralize the borrowings. Although we perform due diligence on the assets that we acquire, certain representations and warranties that we make in respect of such assets may ultimately be determined to be inaccurate. In addition, our loan sale agreements require us to make representations and warranties to the purchaser regarding the loans that were sold. Such representations and warranties

may include, but are not limited to, issues such as the validity of the lien; the absence of delinquent taxes or other liens; the loans’ compliance with all local, state and federal laws and the delivery of all documents required to perfect title to the lien.

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

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

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

A subsidiarySubsidiaries of New Residential, NRM hasand NewRez, have obtained or is currently in the process of obtaining applicable qualifications, licenses and approvals to own Non-Agency and certain Agency MSRs in the United States and certain other jurisdictions. As a result of NRM’sNRM and NewRez’s current and expected approvals, NRM isand NewRez are subject to extensive and comprehensive regulation under federal, state and local laws in the United States. These laws and regulations do, and may in the future, significantly affect the way that NRM doesand NewRez do business, and subject NRM, NewRez and New Residential to additional costs and regulatory obligations, which could impact our financial results.

 

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

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

Additionally, NRM hasand NewRez have received approval from FHA to hold MSRs associated with FHA-insured mortgage loans, from Fannie Mae to hold MSRs associated with loans owned by Fannie Mae, and from Freddie Mac to hold MSRs associated with loans owned by Freddie Mac. NRM may seek approval from Ginnie Mae to become an approved Ginnie Mae Issuer, which would make NRM eligible to hold MSRs associated with Ginnie Mae securities. As an approved Fannie Mae Servicer,Servicers, Freddie Mac ServicerServicers and FHA Lender,Lenders, NRM isand NewRez are required to conduct aspects of itstheir respective operations in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines published by FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to maintain those approvals. Should NRM or NewRez fail to maintain FHA, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac approval, NRM or fail to obtain approval from Ginnie Mae, NRMNewRez may be unable to purchase certain types ofor hold MSRs associated with FHA-insured, Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac loans, which could limit our potential business activities.

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

We have acquired MSRs and may in the future acquire additional MSRs from third-party mortgage loan originators, brokers or other sellers, and we therefore are or will become dependent on such third parties for the related mortgage loans’ compliance with applicable law, and on third-party mortgage servicers, including our Servicing Partners, to perform the day-to-day servicing on the mortgage loans underlying any such MSRs. Mortgage loan originators and brokers are subject to strict and evolving consumer protection laws and other legal obligations with respect to the origination of residential mortgage loans. These laws and regulations include the residential mortgage servicing standards, “ability-to-repay” and “qualified mortgage” regulations promulgated by the CFPB, which became effective in 2014. In addition, there are various other federal, state, and local laws and regulations that are intended to discourage predatory lending practices by residential mortgage loan originators. These laws may be highly subjective and open to interpretation and, as a result, a regulator or court may determine that that there has been a violation where an originator or servicer of mortgage loans reasonably believed that the law or requirement had been satisfied. Although we do not currently originate or directly service any mortgage loans, failureFailure or alleged failure by originators or servicers to comply with these laws and regulations could subject us as an investor in MSRs, to state or CFPB administrative proceedings, which could result in monetary penalties, license suspensions or revocations, or restrictions to our business, all of which could adversely impact our business and financial results and damage our reputation.

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

In addition to NewRez d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, we engage third-party servicers to subservice mortgage loans relating to any MSRs we acquire. It is therefore possible that a third-party servicer’s failure to comply with the new and evolving servicing protocols could adversely affect the value of the MSRs we acquire. Additionally, we may become subject to

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

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

None of our officers or other senior individuals who perform services for us (other than three part-time employees of NRM), is an employee of New Residential. Instead, these individuals are employees of our Manager. Accordingly, we are completely reliant on our Manager, which has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and strategies, to conduct our business. We are subject to the risk that our Manager will terminate the Management Agreement and that we will not be able to find a suitable replacement for our Manager in a timely manner, at a reasonable cost or at all. Furthermore, we are dependent on the services of certain key employees of our Manager whose compensation is partially or entirely dependent upon the amount of incentive or management compensation earned by our Manager and whose continued service is not guaranteed, and the loss of such services could adversely affect our operations.

On December 27, 2017, SoftBank announced that it completed the SoftBank Merger. In connection with the SoftBank Merger, Fortress operates within SoftBank as an independent business headquartered in New York. There can be no assurance that the SoftBank Merger will not have an impact on us or our relationship with the Manager.

Our Management Agreement with our Manager was not negotiated between unaffiliated parties, and its terms, including fees payable, although approved by the independent directors of New Residential as fair, may not be as favorable to us as if they had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

There are conflicts of interest inherent in our relationship with our Manager insofar as our Manager and its affiliates—including investment funds, private investment funds, or businesses managed by our Manager—Manager invest in real estate and other securities and loans, consumer loans and interests in MSRs and whose investment objectives overlap with our investment objectives. Certain investments appropriate for us may also be appropriate for one or more of these other investment vehicles. Certain members of

Our Management Agreement with our Manager generally does not limit or restrict our Manager or its affiliates from engaging in any business or managing other pooled investment vehicles that invest in investments that meet our investment objectives. Our Manager intends to engage in additional real estate related management and real estate and other investment opportunities in the future, which may compete with us for investments or result in a change in our current investment strategy. In addition, our certificate of incorporation provides that if Fortress or an affiliate or any of their officers, directors or employees acquire knowledge of a potential transaction that could be a corporate opportunity, they have no duty, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to offer such corporate opportunity to us, our stockholders or our affiliates. In the event that any of our directors and officers who is also a director, officer or employee of Fortress or its affiliates acquires knowledge of a corporate opportunity or is offered a corporate opportunity, provided that this knowledge was not acquired solely in such person’s capacity as a director or officer of New Residential and such person acts in good faith, then to the fullest extent permitted by law such person is deemed to have fully satisfied such person’s fiduciary duties owed to us and is not liable to us if Fortress or its affiliates pursues or acquires the corporate opportunity or if such person did not present the corporate opportunity to us.

The ability of our Manager and its officers and employees to engage in other business activities, subject to the terms of our Management Agreement with our Manager, may reduce the amount of time our Manager, its officers or other employees spend managing us. In addition, we have engaged and may in the future engage (subject to our investment guidelines) in material transactions with our Manager or another entity managed by our Manager or one of its affiliates, which may include, but are not limited to, certain financing arrangements, purchases of debt, co-investments in interests in MSRs, consumer loans, and other assets that present an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. It is possible that actual, potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to investor dissatisfaction, litigation or regulatory enforcement actions. Appropriately dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and difficult, and our reputation could be damaged if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with one or more potential, actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Regulatory scrutiny of, or litigation in connection with, conflicts of interest could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, which could materially adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including causing an inability to raise additional funds, a reluctance of counterparties to do business with us, a decrease in the prices of our equity securities and a resulting increased risk of litigation and regulatory enforcement actions.

The management compensation structure that we have agreed to with our Manager, as well as compensation arrangements that we may enter into with our Manager in the future (in connection with new lines of business or other activities), may incentivize our Manager to invest in high risk investments. In addition to its management fee, our Manager is currently entitled to receive incentive compensation. In evaluating investments and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn incentive compensation may lead our Manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of earnings, including through the use of leverage, at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, in order to achieve higher incentive compensation. Investments with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative than lower-yielding investments. Moreover, because our Manager receives compensation in the form of options in connection with the completion of our common equity offerings, our Manager may be incentivized to cause us to issue additional common stock, which could be dilutive to existing stockholders. In addition, our Manager’s management fee is not tied to our performance and may not sufficiently incentivize our Manager to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for us.

It would be difficult and costly for us to terminate our Management Agreement with our Manager. The Management Agreement may only be terminated annually upon (i) the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors, or by a vote of the holders of a simple majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock, that there has been unsatisfactory performance by our Manager that is materially detrimental to us or (ii) a determination by a simple majority of our independent directors that the management fee payable to our Manager is not fair, subject to our Manager’s right to prevent such a termination by accepting a mutually acceptable reduction of fees. Our Manager will be provided 60 days’ prior notice of any termination and will be paid a termination fee equal to the amount of the management fee earned by the Manager during the 12-month period preceding such termination. In addition, following any termination of the Management Agreement, our Manager may require us to purchase its

Our Manager is authorized to follow broad investment guidelines. Consequently, our Manager has great latitude in determining the types and categories of assets it may decide are proper investments for us, including the latitude to invest in types and categories of assets that may differ from those in which we currently invest. Our directors will periodically review our investment guidelines and our investment portfolio. However, our board does not review or pre-approve each proposed investment or our related financing arrangements. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, the directors rely primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Furthermore, transactions entered into by our Manager may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by the directors, even if the transactions contravene the terms of the Management Agreement. In addition, we may change our investment strategy, including our target asset classes, without a stockholder vote.

Our investment strategy may evolve in light of existing market conditions and investment opportunities, and this evolution may involve additional risks depending upon the nature of the assets in which we invest and our ability to finance such assets on a short or long-term basis. Investment opportunities that present unattractive risk-return profiles relative to other available investment opportunities under particular market conditions may become relatively attractive under changed market conditions, and changes in market conditions may therefore result in changes in the investments we target. Decisions to make investments in new asset categories present risks that may be difficult for us to adequately assess and could therefore reduce our ability to pay dividends on our common stock or have adverse effects on our liquidity, results of operations or financial condition. A change in our investment strategy may also increase our exposure to interest rate, foreign currency, real estate market or credit market fluctuations and expose us to new legal and regulatory risks. In addition, a change in our investment strategy may increase our use of non-match-funded financing, increase the guarantee obligations we agree to incur or increase the number of transactions we enter into with affiliates. Our failure to accurately assess the risks inherent in new asset categories or the financing risks associated with such assets could adversely affect our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

Pursuant to our Management Agreement, our Manager will not assume any responsibility other than to render the services called for thereunder in good faith and will not be responsible for any action of our board of directors in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. Our Manager, its members, managers, officers and employees will not be liable to us or any of our subsidiaries, to our board of directors, or our or any subsidiary’s stockholders or partners for any acts or omissions by our Manager, its members, managers, officers or employees, except by reason of acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of our Manager’s duties under our Management Agreement. We shall, to the full extent lawful, reimburse, indemnify and hold our Manager, its members, managers, officers and employees and each other person, if any, controlling our Manager harmless of and from any and all expenses, losses, damages, liabilities, demands, charges and claims of any nature whatsoever (including attorneys’ fees) in respect of or arising from any acts or omissions of an indemnified party made in good faith in the performance of our Manager’s duties under our Management Agreement and not constituting such indemnified party’s bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of our Manager’s duties under our Management Agreement.

Our Manager intends to conduct due diligence with respect to each investment opportunity or other transaction it pursues. It is possible, however, that our Manager’s due diligence processes will not uncover all relevant facts, particularly with respect to any assets we acquire from third parties. In these cases, our Manager may be given limited access to information about the investment and will rely on information provided by the target of the investment. In addition, if investment opportunities are scarce, the process for selecting bidders is competitive, or the timeframe in which we are required to complete diligence is short, our ability to conduct a due diligence investigation may be limited, and we would be required to make investment decisions based upon a less thorough diligence process than would otherwise be the case. Accordingly, investments and other transactions that initially appear to be viable may prove not to be over time, due to the limitations of the due diligence process or other factors.

Some of our directors, officers and other employees of our Manager hold positions with entities either owned by Fortress funds managed by affiliates of our Manager or managed by our Manager and own such entities’ common stock, options to purchase such entities’ common stock or other equity awards. Such ownership may create, or may create the appearance of, conflicts of interest when these directors, officers and other employees are faced with decisions that could have different implications for such entities than they do for us.

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

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

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

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

Also, under the Dodd-Frank Act, financial regulators belonging to the Financial Stability Oversight Council are authorized to designate nonbank financial institutions and financial activities as systemically important to the economy and therefore subject

to closer regulatory supervision. Such systemically important financial institutions, or “SIFIs,” may be required to operate with greater safety margins, such as higher levels of capital, and may face further limitations on their activities. The determination of what constitutes a SIFI is evolving, and in time SIFIs may include large investment funds and even asset managers. There can be no assurance that we will not be deemed to be a SIFI or engage in activities later determined to be systemically important and thus subject to further regulation.

Even new requirements that are not directly applicable to us may still increase our costs of entering into transactions with the parties to whom the requirements are directly applicable. For instance, if the exchange-trading and trade reporting requirements lead to reductions in the liquidity of derivative transactions we may experience higher pricing or reduced availability of derivatives, or the reduction of arbitrage opportunities for us, which could adversely affect the performance of certain of our trading strategies. Importantly, many key aspects of the changes imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act will continue to be established by various regulatory bodies and other groups over the next several years.

In addition, there is significant uncertainty regarding the legislative and regulatory outlook for the Dodd-Frank Act and related statutes governing financial services, which may include Dodd-Frank Act amendments, mortgage finance and housing policy in

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

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

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

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

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

There can be no assurance that the U.S. Government’s intervention in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be adequate for the longer-term viability of these GSEs. These uncertainties lead to questions about the availability of and trading market for, Agency RMBS. Accordingly, if these government actions are inadequate and the GSEs defaulted on their guaranteed

obligations, suffered losses or ceased to exist, the value of our Agency RMBS and our business, operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

Additionally, because of the financial problems faced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to their federal conservatorships, the Administration and Congress have been examining reform of the GSEs, including the value of a federal mortgage guarantee and the appropriate role for the U.S. government in providing liquidity for residential mortgage loans. The respective chairmen of the Congressional committees of jurisdiction, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury, has each stated that GSE reform, including a possible wind down of the GSEs, is a priority. However, the final details of any plans, policies or proposals with respect to the housing GSEs are unknown at this time. Other bills have been introduced that change the GSEs’ business charters and eliminate the entities or make other changes to the existing framework. We cannot predict whether or when such legislation may be enacted. If enacted, such legislation could materially and adversely affect the availability of, and trading market for, Agency RMBS and could, therefore, materially and adversely affect the value of our Agency RMBS and our business, operations and financial condition.

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

 

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

We intend to operate in a manner intended to qualify us as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends upon our analysis of the fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we do not obtain independent appraisals. See “—Risks Related to our Business—The valuations of our assets are subject to uncertainty because most of our assets are not traded in an active market,” and “—Risks Related to Our Business—Rapid changes in the values of our assets may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or our exclusion from the 1940 Act.” Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to successfully manage the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Moreover, the

proper classification of one or more of our investments (such as TBAs) may be uncertain in some circumstances, which could affect the application of the REIT qualification requirements. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) will not contend that our investments violate the REIT requirements.

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