In addition, the CMBS market may be significantly affected by current or future regulation. The risk retention rules under the Dodd-Frank Act, which generally require a sponsor of a CMBS transaction to retain, directly or indirectly, at least 5% of the credit risk of the securitized assets collateralizing the CMBS, went into effect in December 2016. The impact of these requirements on the CMBS securitization market generally are uncertain and may result in many CMBS market participants ceasing origination of and investment in CMBS, a lack of liquidity in the CMBS market and increased costs in CMBS transactions. As a result, there may be little or no CMBS investment opportunities available to us and any opportunities that are available may be less attractive than CMBS opportunities prior to the effectiveness of the risk retention rules. The rules may also negatively affect the market value of our current CMBS holdings as well as the larger commercial real estate debt markets.

We may find it necessary or desirable to foreclose on certain of the loans we originate or acquire, and the foreclosure process may be lengthy and expensive. If we foreclose on an asset, we may take title to the property securing that asset, and if we do not or cannot sell the property, we would then come to own and operate it as “real estate owned.” Owning and operating real property involves risks that are different (and in many ways more significant) than the risks faced in owning an asset secured by that property. In addition, the liquidation proceeds upon sale of the underlying real estate may not be sufficient to recover our cost basis in the loan, resulting in a loss to us.

Whether or not we have participated in the negotiation of the terms of any such loans, we cannot assure you as to the adequacy of the protection of the terms of the applicable loan, including the validity or enforceability of the loan and the maintenance of the anticipated priority and perfection of the applicable security interests. Furthermore, claims may be asserted by lenders or borrowers that might interfere with enforcement of our rights. Borrowers may resist foreclosure actions by asserting numerous claims, counterclaims and defenses against us, including, without limitation, lender liability claims and defenses, even when the assertions may have no basis in fact, in an effort to prolong the foreclosure action and seek to force the lender into a modification of the loan or a favorable buy-out of the borrower'sborrower’s position in the loan. In some states, foreclosure actions can

take several years or more to litigate. At any time prior to or during the foreclosure proceedings, the borrower may file for bankruptcy, which would have the effect of staying the foreclosure actions and further delaying the foreclosure process and potentially resulting in a reduction or discharge of a borrower'sborrower’s debt. Foreclosure may create a negative public perception of the related property, resulting in a diminution of its value. Even if we are successful in foreclosing on a loan, the liquidation proceeds upon sale of the underlying real estate may not be sufficient to recover our cost basis in the loan, resulting in a loss. Furthermore, any costs or delays involved in the foreclosure of the loan or a liquidation of the underlying property will further reduce the net proceeds and, thus, increase any such loss to us.

In recent years, a number of judicial decisions have upheld the right of borrowers to sue lending institutions on the basis of various evolving legal theories, collectively termed "lender“lender liability."” Generally, lender liability is founded on the premise that a lender has either violated a duty, whether implied or contractual, of good faith and fair dealing owed to the borrower or has assumed a degree of control over the borrower resulting in the creation of a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower or its other creditors or stockholders. No assurance can be given that such claims will not arise or that we will not be subject to significant liability if a claim of this type did arise.

In certain limited cases (e.g., in connection with a workout, restructuring and/or foreclosing proceedings involving one or more of our debt investments), the success of our investment strategy with respect thereto will depend, in part, on our ability to effectuate loan modifications and/or restructures. The activity of identifying and implementing any such restructuring programs entails a high degree of uncertainty. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully identify and implement such

These financial difficulties may never be overcome and may cause borrowers to become subject to bankruptcy or other similar administrative and operating proceedings. There is a possibility that we may incur substantial or total losses on our investments and in certain circumstances, become subject to certain additional potential liabilities that may exceed the value of our original investment therein. For example, under certain circumstances, a lender who has inappropriately exercised control over the management and policies of a debtor may have its claims subordinated or disallowed or may be found liable for damages suffered by parties as a result of such actions. In any reorganization or liquidation proceeding relating to our investments, we may lose our entire investment, may be required to accept cash or securities with a value less than our original investment and/or may be required to accept payment over an extended period of time. In addition, under certain circumstances, payments to us and distributions by us to the stockholders may be reclaimed if any such payment or distribution is later determined to have been a fraudulent conveyance, preferential payment or similar transaction under applicable bankruptcy and insolvency laws. Furthermore, bankruptcy laws and similar laws applicable to administrative proceedings may delay our ability to realize value on collateral for loan positions held by us or may adversely affect the priority of such loans through doctrines such as equitable

subordination or may result in a restructure of the debt through principles such as the "cramdown"“cramdown” provisions of the bankruptcy laws.

We believe the risks associated with our business will be more severe during periods of economic slowdown or recession if these periods are accompanied by declining real estate values. Declining real estate values will likely reduce the level of new mortgage and other real estate‑related loan originations since borrowers often use appreciation in the value of their existing properties to support the purchase or investment in additional properties. Borrowers may also be less able to pay principal and interest on our loans if the value of real estate weakens. Further, declining real estate values significantly increase the likelihood that we will incur losses on its loans in the event of default because the value of our collateral may be insufficient to cover its cost on the loan. Any sustained period of increased payment delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect our Manager’s ability to invest in, sell and securitize loans, which would materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and business and our ability to pay dividends to stockholders.

A decline in the fair value of our assets may require us to recognize an “other-than-temporary” impairment against such assets under GAAP if we were to determine that, with respect to any assets in unrealized loss positions, we do not have the ability and intent to hold such assets to maturity or for a period of time sufficient to allow for recovery to the original acquisition cost of such assets. If such a determination were to be made, we would recognize unrealized losses through earnings and write down the amortized cost of such assets to a new cost basis, based on the fair value of such assets on the date they are considered to be other-than-temporarily impaired. Such impairment charges reflect non-cash losses at the time of recognition; subsequent disposition or sale of such assets could further affect our future losses or gains, as they are based on the difference between the sale price received and adjusted amortized cost of such assets at the time of sale. If we experience a decline in the fair value of our assets, it could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Some or all of our portfolio investments may be in the form of positions or securities that are not publicly traded and are recorded at their estimated fair value. The fair value of investments that are not publicly traded may not be readily determinable. Our Manager will value these investments at fair value which may include unobservable inputs. Because such valuations are subjective, the fair value of certain of our assets may fluctuate over short periods of time and our Manager’s determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these securities existed. Our results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected if our Manager’s determinations regarding the fair value of these investments were materially higher than the values that we ultimately realize upon their disposal.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we may also invest in, or use as part of our investment strategy, certain derivative instruments, including swaps, futures, forwards and options. Generally, a derivative is a financial contract the value of which depends upon, or is derived from, the value of an underlying asset, reference rate or index and may relate to individual debt or equity instruments, interest rates, currencies or currency exchange rates, commodities, related indices or other assets. The gross returns to be exchanged or swapped between the parties under a derivative instrument are generally calculated with respect to a “notional amount,” which may be significantly greater than the amount of cash or assets required to establish or maintain the derivative position. Accordingly, trading in derivative instruments can result in large amounts of leverage, which may magnify the gains and losses experienced by us in respect of derivative instruments and may result in a loss of capital that is more exaggerated than would have resulted from an investment that did not involve the use of leverage inherent in the derivative contract.

While the judicious use of derivative instruments can be beneficial, such instruments involve risks different from, and, in certain cases, greater than, the risks presented by more traditional investments. Many of the derivative instruments used by us will be privately negotiated in over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets. Such derivatives are highly specialized instruments that require investment techniques and risk analyses different from those associated with equities and bonds. The use of derivative instruments also requires an understanding not only of the underlying asset, reference rate or index but also of the derivative

itself, without the benefit of observing the performance of the derivative under all possible market conditions. The use of derivative instruments may also require us to sell or purchase portfolio securities at inopportune times or for prices below or above the current market values, may limit the amount of appreciation we can realize on an investment or may cause us to hold a security that it might otherwise want to sell. We may also have to defer closing out certain derivative positions to avoid adverse tax consequences and there may be situations in which derivative instruments are not elected that result in losses greater than if such instruments had been used. Furthermore, amounts paid by us as premiums and cash or other assets held in margin accounts with respect to our derivative instruments would not be available to us for other investment purposes, which may result in lost opportunities for gain.

Investing in derivative instruments may present various additional market and counterparty-related risks including, but not limited to:

Additionally, our Manager may cause us to take advantage of investment opportunities with respect to derivative instruments that are neither presently contemplated nor currently available, but which may be developed in the future, to the extent such opportunities are both consistent with our investment objectives and legally permissible. Any such investments may expose us to unique and presently indeterminate risks, the impact of which may not be capable of determination until such instruments are developed and/or our Manager determines to make such an investment on our behalf.

Although we have not done so to date, we may originate, invest in or acquire assets denominated in foreign currencies, which may expose us to foreign currency risk. As a result, a change in foreign currency exchange rates may have an adverse impact on the valuation of our assets, as well as our income and distributions. Any such changes in foreign currency exchange rates may

impact the measurement of such assets or income for the purposes of the REIT tests and may affect the amounts available for payment of dividends on our common stock. See "—“—Risks Related to Our REIT Status and Certain Other Tax Considerations."

Our investment guidelines permit investments in non-U.S. assets, subject to the same guidelines as investments in U.S. assets. To the extent that we invest in non-U.S. real estate-related assets, we may be subject to certain risks associated with international investments generally, including, among others:

If any of the foregoing risks were to materialize, they could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The illiquidity of some or all of our investments may make it difficult for us to sell such investments if the need or desire arises. In addition, certain of our investments may become less liquid after investment as a result of periods of delinquencies, defaults or turbulent market conditions, which may make it more difficult for us to dispose of such assets at advantageous times or in a timely manner. Moreover, many of our investments will not be registered under the relevant securities laws, resulting in prohibitions on their transfer, sale, pledge or their disposition except in transactions that are exempt from registration requirements or are otherwise in accordance with such laws. As a result, many of our investments are expected to be illiquid, and if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we previously recorded our investments. Further, we may face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate an investment to the extent that we or our Manager has or could be attributed as having material, non-public information regarding such business entity. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic or other conditions may be relatively limited, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We have utilized and may utilize in the future, non-recourse securitizations of certain of our portfolio investments to generate cash for funding new loans and investments and other purposes. These transactions generally involve us creating a special-purpose vehicle, contributing a pool of our assets to the entity, and selling interests in the entity on a non-recourse basis to purchasers (whom we would expect to be willing to accept a lower interest rate to invest in investment-grade loan pools). We would expect to retain all or a portion of the equity and potentially other tranches in the securitized pool of loans or investments. In addition, we have retained in the past and may in the future retain a pari passu participation in the securitized pool of loans.

Prior to any such financing, we may use short-term facilities to finance the acquisition of securities until a sufficient quantity of investments had been accumulated, at which time we would refinance these facilities through a securitization, such as a CMBS, or issuance of CLOs, or the private placement of loan participations or other long-term financing. As a result, we would be subject to the risk that we would not be able to acquire, during the period that our short-term facilities are available, a sufficient amount of eligible investments to maximize the efficiency of a CMBS, CLO or private placement issuance. We also would be subject to the risk that we would not be able to obtain short-term credit facilities or would not be able to renew any short-term credit facilities after they expire should we find it necessary to extend our short-term credit facilities to allow more time to seek and acquire the necessary eligible investments for a long-term financing. The inability to consummate securitizations of our portfolio to finance our loans and investments on a long-term basis could require us to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at an inopportune time or price, which could adversely affect our performance and our ability to grow our business. Moreover, conditions in the capital markets, including volatility and disruption in the capital and credit markets, may not permit a non-recourse securitization at any particular time or may make the issuance of any such securitization less attractive to us even when we do have sufficient eligible assets. We may also suffer losses if the value of the mortgage loans we acquire declines prior to securitization. Declines in the value of a mortgage loan can be due to, among other things, changes in interest rates and changes in the credit quality of the loan. In addition, we may suffer a loss due to the incurrence of transaction costs related to executing these transactions. To the extent that we incur a loss executing or participating in future securitizations for the reasons described above or for other reasons, it could materially and adversely impact our business and financial condition.

In addition, the securitization of our portfolio might magnify our exposure to losses because any equity interest we retain in the issuing entity would be subordinate to the notes issued to investors and we would, therefore, absorb all of the losses sustained with respect to a securitized pool of assets before the owners of the notes experience any losses. The inability to securitize our portfolio may hurt our performance and our ability to grow our business. At the same time, the securitization of our loans or investments might expose us to losses, as the residual loans or investments in which we do not sell interests will tend to be riskier and more likely to generate losses. Moreover, the Dodd-Frank Act contains a risk retention requirement for all asset-backed securities, which requires both public and private securitizers to retain not less than 5% of the credit risk of the assets collateralizing any asset-backed security issuance. Significant restrictions exist, and additional restrictions may be added in the future, regarding who may hold risk retention interests, the structure of the entities that hold risk retention interests and when and how such risk retention interests may be transferred. Therefore such risk retention interests will generally be illiquid. As a result of the risk retention requirements, we have and may in the future be required to purchase and retain certain interests in a securitization into which we sell mortgage loans and/or when we act as issuer, may be required to sell certain interests in a securitization at prices below levels that such interests have historically yielded and/or may be required to enter into certain arrangements related to risk retention that we have not historically been required to enter into. Accordingly, the risk retention rules may increase our potential liabilities and/or reduce our potential profits in connection with securitization of mortgage

While we primarily seek to make real estate-related debt investments, our Manager may otherwise implement on our behalf strategies or discretionary approaches it believes from time to time may be best suited to prevailing market conditions in furtherance of that purpose, subject to the supervision and direction of our board of directors and the limitations set forth in our organizational documents and governing agreements. There can be no assurance that our Manager will be successful in implementing any particular investment strategy. Our Manager may change our investment strategy or asset allocation at any time without the consent of stockholders, which could result in our Manager making investments that are different from, and

possibly riskier than, the investments described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. A change in our investment strategy may also increase our exposure to interest rate and real estate market fluctuations and could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Accounting rules for loan impairment, transfers of financial assets, securitization transactions, consolidation of VIEs, loan loss reserves and other aspects of our operations are highly complex and involve significant judgment and assumptions. These complexities could lead to a delay in preparation of financial information and the delivery of this information to our stockholders. Changes in accounting interpretations or assumptions could also impact our consolidated financial statements and our ability to timely prepare our consolidated financial statements. Our inability to timely prepare our consolidated financial statements in the future would likely have a significant adverse effect on our stock price.

Our provision for loan losses is evaluated on a quarterly basis. The determination of our provision for loan losses requires us to make certain estimates and judgments, which may be difficult to determine. Our estimates and judgments are based on a number of factors, including projected cash flow from the collateral securing our loans, debt structure, including the availability of reserves and recourse guarantees, likelihood of repayment in full at the maturity of a loan, potential for refinancing and expected market discount rates for varying property types, all of which remain uncertain and are subjective. Our estimates and judgments may not be correct and, therefore, our results of operations and financial condition could be severely impacted.

In addition, in June 2016, the FASB, issued Accounting Standards Update 2016-13, “Financial Instruments-CreditInstruments—Credit Losses, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments (Topic 326),” which replaces the current “incurred loss” model for recognizing credit losses with an “expected loss” model referred to as the Current Expected Credit Loss model, or CECL. Under the CECL model, which will becomebecame effective for us for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 20192020 and for interim periods within those fiscal years,therein, we will beare required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is to be based on information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. This measurement will take place at the time the financial asset is first added to the balance sheet and updated quarterly thereafter. This differs significantly from the “incurred loss” model previously required under current GAAP, which delaysdelayed recognition until it iswas probable a loss has been incurred. Accordingly, we expect that the adoption of the CECL model will materially affect how we determine our allowance for loan losses and could require us to significantly increase our allowance and recognize provisions for loan losses earlier in the lending cycle. Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for loan losses. If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for loan losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, we are highly dependent on information systems and technology. Our information systems and technology may not continue to be able to accommodate our growth, and the cost of maintaining such systems may increase from its current level.

Such a failure to accommodate growth, or an increase in costs related to such information systems, could have a material adverse effect on us.

Finally, we rely on third-party service providers for certain aspects of our business, including for certain information systems, technology and administration. Any interruption or deterioration in the performance of these third parties or failures of their information systems and technology could impair the quality of our operations and could affect our reputation and hence adversely affect our business.

All of our assets, including any investments made by us and any funds held by us, may be available to satisfy all of our liabilities and other obligations. If we become subject to a liability, parties seeking to have the liability satisfied may have recourse to our assets generally and not be limited to any particular asset, such as the asset representing the investment giving rise to the liability.

Nonbank companies are generally required to hold licenses in a number of U.S. states to conduct lending activities. State licensing statutes vary from state to state and prescribe or impose various recordkeeping requirements; restrictions on loan origination and servicing practices, including limits on finance charges and the type, amount and manner of charging fees; disclosure requirements; requirements that licensees submit to periodic examination; surety bond and minimum specified net worth requirements; periodic financial reporting requirements; notification requirements for changes in principal officers, stock ownership or corporate control; restrictions on advertising; and requirements that loan forms be submitted for review. Obtaining and maintaining licenses will cause us to incur expenses and failure to be properly licensed under state law or otherwise may have a material adverse effect on us and our operations.

To avoid the need to register as an investment company, the securities issued to us by any wholly owned or majority-owned subsidiaries that we may form in the future that are excluded from the definition of investment company under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, together with any other investment securities we may own, may not have a value in excess of 40% of the value of our total assets on an unconsolidated basis. We will monitor our holdings to ensure ongoing compliance with this test, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to avoid the need to register as an investment company. The 40% test 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 Investment Company Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Investment Company Act, which may adversely affect our business.

We hold our assets primarily through direct or indirect wholly owned or majority-owned subsidiaries, certain of which are excluded from the definition of investment company pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act. To qualify for the exclusion pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) based on positions set forth by the staff of the SEC, each such subsidiary generally is required to hold at least (i) 55% of its assets in "qualifying"“qualifying” real estate assets and (ii) at least 80% of its assets in "qualifying"“qualifying” real estate assets and real estate-related assets. For our subsidiaries that maintain this exclusion or another exclusion or exception under the Investment Company Act (other than Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) thereof), our interests in these subsidiaries do not and will not constitute "investment“investment securities."

As a consequence of our seeking to avoid the need to register under the Investment Company Act on an ongoing basis, we and/or our subsidiaries may be restricted from making certain investments or may structure investments in a manner that would be less advantageous to us than would be the case in the absence of such requirements. In particular, a change in the value of any of our assets could negatively affect our ability to avoid the need to register under the Investment Company Act and cause the need for a restructuring of our investment portfolio. For example, these restrictions may limit our and our subsidiaries'subsidiaries’ ability to invest directly in mortgage-backed securities that represent less than the entire ownership in a pool of senior loans, debt and equity tranches of securitizations and certain asset-backed securities, non-controlling equity interests in real estate companies or in assets not related to real estate; however, we and our subsidiaries may invest in such securities to a certain extent. In addition, seeking to avoid the need to register under the Investment Company Act may cause us and/or our subsidiaries to acquire or hold additional assets that we might not otherwise have acquired or held or dispose of investments that we and/or our subsidiaries might not have otherwise disposed of, which could result in higher costs or lower proceeds to us than we would have paid or received if we were not seeking to comply with such requirements. Thus, avoiding registration under the Investment Company Act may hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing profits.

We will determine whether an entity is a majority-owned subsidiary of our company. The Investment Company Act defines a majority-owned subsidiary of a person as a company 50% or more of the outstanding voting securities of which are owned by such person, or by another company which is a majority-owned subsidiary of such person. The Investment Company Act defines voting securities as any security presently entitling the owner or holder thereof to vote for the election of directors of a company. We treat entities in which we own at least a majority of the outstanding voting securities as majority-owned subsidiaries for purposes of the 40% test. We have not requested that the SEC or its staff approve our treatment of any entity as a majority-owned subsidiary, and neither has done so. If the SEC or its staff were to disagree with our treatment of one or more subsidiary entities as majority-owned subsidiaries, we may need to adjust our strategy and our assets in order to continue to pass the 40% test. Any adjustment in our strategy or assets could have a material adverse effect on us.

To the extent that the SEC or its staff provide more specific guidance regarding any of the matters bearing upon the definition of investment company and the exemptions to that definition, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. On August 31, 2011, the SEC issued a concept release and request for comments regarding the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion (Release No. IC-29778) in which it contemplated the possibility of issuing new rules or providing new interpretations of the

exemption that might, among other things, define the phrase "liens“liens on and other interests in real estate"estate” or consider sources of income in determining a company's "primarycompany’s “primary business."” Any additional guidance from the SEC or its staff could provide additional flexibility to us, or it could further inhibit our ability to pursue the strategies we have chosen.

There can be no assurance that we and our subsidiaries will be able to successfully avoid operating as an unregistered investment company. If it were established that we were an unregistered investment company, there would be a risk that we would be subject to monetary penalties and injunctive relief in an action brought by the SEC, that we would be unable to enforce contracts with third parties, that third parties could seek to obtain rescission of transactions undertaken during the period it was established that we were an unregistered investment company, and that we would be subject to limitations on corporate leverage that would have an adverse impact on our investment returns.

The laws and regulations governing our operations, as well as their interpretation, may change from time to time, and new laws and regulations may be enacted. Accordingly, any change in these laws or regulations, changes in their interpretation, or newly enacted laws or regulations and any failure by us to comply with these laws or regulations, could require changes to certain of our business practices, negatively impact our operations, cash flow or financial condition, impose additional costs on us or otherwise adversely affect our business. For example, from time to time the market for real estate debt transactions has been adversely affected by a decrease in the availability of senior and subordinated financing for transactions, in part in response to regulatory pressures on providers of financing to reduce or eliminate their exposure to such transactions. Furthermore, if regulatory capital requirements—whetherrequirements-whether under the Dodd-Frank Act, Basel III (i.e., the framework for a comprehensive set of capital and liquidity standards for internationally active banking organizations, which was adopted in June 2011 by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, an international body comprised of senior representatives of bank supervisory authorities and central banks from 27 countries, including the United States) or other regulatory action—areaction-are imposed on private lenders that provide us with funds, or were to be imposed on us, they or we may be required to limit, or increase the cost of, financing they provide to us or that we provide to others. Among other things, this could potentially increase our financing costs, reduce our ability to originate or acquire loans and reduce our liquidity or require us to sell assets at an inopportune time or price.

There has been increasing commentary amongst regulators and intergovernmental institutions on the role of nonbank institutions in providing credit and, particularly, so-called "shadow“shadow banking,"” a term generally taken to refer to credit

and supervisory requirements, such as capital and liquidity standards, currently applicable to banks, then the regulatory and operating costs associated therewith could adversely impact the implementation of our investment strategy and our returns. In an extreme eventuality, it is possible that such regulations could render the continued operation of our company unviable.

Legal or governmental proceedings brought by or on behalf of third parties may adversely affect our financial results. Our investment activities may include activities that are hostile in nature and will subject it to the risks of becoming involved in such proceedings. The expense of defending claims against us and paying any amounts pursuant to settlements or judgments would be borne by us and would reduce net assets. Our Manager will be indemnified by us in connection with such proceedings, subject to certain conditions. Similarly, we may from time to time institute legal proceedings on behalf of ourselves or others, the ultimate outcome of which could cause us to incur substantial damages and expenses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

As a public company with listed equity securities, we must comply with laws, regulations and requirements, including the requirements of the Exchange Act, certain corporate governance provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act"“Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), related regulations of the SEC and requirements of the NYSE, with which we were not required to comply as a private company. The Exchange Act requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we establish and maintain effective internal controls and procedures for financial reporting. These reporting and other obligations place significant demands on our Manager'sManager’s senior management team, administrative, operational and accounting resources and cause us to incur significant expenses. We may need to upgrade our systems or create new systems, implement additional financial and other controls,

We currently have outstanding indebtedness and, subject to market conditions and availability, we may incur a significant amount of additional debt through bank credit facilities (including term loans and revolving facilities), warehouse facilities and structured financing arrangements, public and private debt issuances (including through securitizations) and derivative

instruments, in addition to transaction or asset-specific funding arrangements and additional repurchase agreements. We may also issue debt or equity securities to fund our growth. The percentage of leverage we employ will vary depending on our available capital, our ability to obtain and access financing arrangements with lenders, the type of asset we are funding, whether the financing is recourse or non-recourse, debt restrictions contained in those financing arrangements and the lenders'lenders’ and rating agencies'agencies’ estimate of the stability of our investment portfolio'sportfolio’s cash flow. We may significantly increase the amount of leverage we utilize at any time without approval of our board of directors. In addition, we may leverage individual assets at substantially higher levels. Incurring substantial debt could subject us to many risks that, if realized, would materially and adversely affect us, including the risk that:

There can be no assurance that a leveraging strategy will be successful, and such strategy may subject us to increased risk of loss and could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We leverage certain of our target assets through borrowings under our repurchase agreements. Leverage can enhance our potential returns but can also exacerbate losses. The return on our investments and cash available for distribution to stockholders may be reduced if market conditions cause the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income that can be derived from the assets acquired, which could adversely affect the price of our common stock. In addition, our debt service payments will reduce cash flow available for distributions to stockholders. As a borrower, we are also subject to the risk that we may not be able to meet our debt service obligations. To the extent that we cannot meet our debt service obligations, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to foreclosure or sale to satisfy our debt obligations.

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

We borrow funds under master repurchase agreements with various counterparties. The documents that govern these master repurchase agreements and the related guarantees contain, and additional lending facilities may contain, customary affirmative and negative covenants, including financial covenants applicable to us that may restrict our flexibility to determine our operating policies and investment strategy. In particular, our master repurchase agreements require us to maintain a certain amount of cash or set aside assets sufficient to maintain a specified liquidity position that would allow us to satisfy our collateral obligations. As a result, we may not be able to leverage our assets as fully as we would otherwise choose, which could reduce our return on assets. If we are unable to meet these collateral obligations, our financial condition and prospects could

deteriorate rapidly. If we fail to meet or satisfy any of these covenants, we would be in default under these agreements, and our lenders could elect to declare outstanding amounts due and payable, terminate their commitments, require the posting of additional collateral and enforce their interests against existing collateral. We may also be subject to cross-default and acceleration rights in our other debt facilities. Further, this could also make it difficult for us to satisfy the requirements necessary to maintain our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes or to avoid our registration under the Investment Company Act. Our master repurchase agreements also grant certain consent rights to the lenders thereunder which give them the right to consent to certain modifications to the pledged collateral. This could limit our ability to manage a pledged investment in a way that we think would provide the best outcome for our stockholders.

Our ability to fund our investments may be impacted by our ability to secure bank credit facilities (including term loans and revolving facilities), warehouse facilities and structured financing arrangements, public and private debt issuances (including through securitizations) and derivative instruments, in addition to transaction or asset-specific funding arrangements and additional repurchase agreements on acceptable terms. We may also rely on short-term financing that would be especially exposed to changes in availability. Our access to sources of financing will depend upon a number of factors, over which we have little or no control, including:

We may need to periodically access the capital markets to raise cash to fund new investments. Unfavorable economic or capital market conditions may increase our funding costs, limit our access to the capital markets or could result in a decision by our potential lenders not to extend credit. An inability to successfully access the capital markets could limit our ability to grow our business and fully execute our business strategy and could decrease our earnings and liquidity. In addition, any dislocation or weakness in the capital and credit markets could adversely affect our lenders and could cause one or more of our lenders to be unwilling or unable to provide us with financing or to increase the costs of that financing. In addition, as regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders are increased, they may be required to limit, or increase the cost of, financing they provide to us. In general, this could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity or require us to sell assets at an inopportune time or price. We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to obtain any such financing on favorable terms or at all.

Regulators and law-enforcement agencies from a number of governments, including entities in the United States, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom, have been conducting civil and criminal investigations into whether the banks that contributed to the British Bankers’ Association, or the BBA, in connection with the calculation of daily LIBOR may have underreported or otherwise manipulated or attempted to manipulate LIBOR. Several financial institutions have reached settlements with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice Fraud Section and the U.K. Financial Services Authority in connection with investigations by such authorities into submissions made by such financial institutions to the bodies that set LIBOR and other interbank offered rates. In such settlements, such financial institutions admitted to submitting rates to the BBA that were lower than the actual rates at which such financial institutions could borrow funds from other banks. Additional investigations remain ongoing with respect to other major banks and no assurance can be made that there will not be further admissions or findings of rate setting manipulation or that improper manipulation of LIBOR or other similar inter-bank lending rates will not occur in the future.

Based on a review conducted by the Financial Conduct Authority of the U.K., or the FCA, and a consultation conducted by the European Commission, proposals have been made for governance and institutional reform, regulation, technical changes and contingency planning. In particular: (a) new legislation has been enacted in the United Kingdom pursuant to which LIBOR submissions and administration are now “regulated activities” and manipulation of LIBOR has been brought within the scope of the market abuse regime; (b) legislation has been proposed which if implemented would, among other things, alter the manner in which LIBOR is determined, compel more banks to provide LIBOR submissions, and require these submissions to be based on actual transaction data; and (c) LIBOR rates for certain currencies and maturities are no longer published daily. In addition, pursuant to authorization from the FCA, ICE Benchmark Administration Limited (formerly NYSE Euronext Rate Administration Limited), or the IBA, took over the administration of LIBOR from the BBA on February 1, 2014. Any new administrator of LIBOR may make methodological changes to the way in which LIBOR is calculated or may alter, discontinue or suspend calculation or dissemination of LIBOR.

We cannot predict the effect of the FCA’s decision not to sustain LIBOR, or, if changes are ultimately made to LIBOR, the effect of those changes. As of December 31, 2019, 99.9% of our loans by principal balance earned a floating rate of interest indexed to LIBOR, and 100.0% of our outstanding financing arrangements (excluding convertible notes) bear interest indexed

to LIBOR. All of these arrangements provide procedures for determining an alternative base rate in the event that LIBOR is discontinued. Regardless, there can be no assurances as to what alternative base rates may be and whether such base rate will be more or less favorable than LIBOR and any other unforeseen impacts of the potential discontinuation of LIBOR. Any such changes, reforms or replacements relating to LIBOR could increase our interest expense and could have an adverse impact on the market for or value of any LIBOR-linked securities, loans, derivatives and other financial obligations or extensions of credit held by or due to us or on our overall financial condition or results of operations.

Our counterparties for critical financial relationships may include both domestic and international financial institutions. These institutions could be severely impacted by credit market turmoil, changes in legislation, allegations of civil or criminal wrongdoing and may as a result experience financial or other pressures. In addition, if a lender or counterparty files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, our borrowings under financing agreements with them may become subject to bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, thus depriving us, at least temporarily, of the benefit of these assets. Such an event could restrict our access to financing and increase our cost of capital. If any of our counterparties were to limit or cease operation, it could lead to financial losses for us.

While not anticipated to be a meaningful component of our investment strategy, we may, subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, utilize a wide variety of derivative financial instruments for risk management purposes, the use of which is a highly specialized activity that may entail greater than ordinary investment risks. Any such hedging transactions may not be effective in mitigating risk in all market conditions or against all types of risk (including unidentified or unanticipated risks), thereby resulting in losses to us. Engaging in hedging transactions may result in a poorer overall performance for us than if we had not engaged in any such hedging transaction, and our Manager may not be able to effectively hedge against, or accurately anticipate, certain risks that may adversely affect our investment portfolio. In addition, our investment portfolio will always be exposed to certain risks that cannot be fully or effectively hedged, such as credit risk relating both to particular securities and counterparties.

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

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

We are subject to credit risk with respect to the counterparties to derivative contracts (whether a clearing corporation in the case of exchange-traded instruments or to our hedge counterparty in the case of OTC instruments). If a counterparty becomes bankrupt or otherwise fails to perform its obligations under a derivative contract due to financial difficulties, we may experience significant delays in obtaining any recovery under the derivative contract in a dissolution, assignment for the benefit of creditors, liquidation, winding-up, bankruptcy, or other analogous proceeding. In the event of the insolvency of a counterparty to a derivative transaction, the derivative transaction would typically be terminated at its fair market value. If we are owed this fair market value in the termination of the derivative transaction and our claim is unsecured, we will be treated as a general creditor of such counterparty, and will not have any claim with respect to the underlying security. We may obtain only a limited recovery or may obtain no recovery in such circumstances. In addition, the business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in its default, which may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to cover our commitments, if any, at the then current market price.

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

We do not have any employees and are externally managed and advised by our Manager, an indirect subsidiary of KKR. Our Manager has significant discretion as to the implementation of our investment and operating policies and strategies. Accordingly, our success depends on the efforts, experience, diligence, skill and network of business contacts of the officers and key personnel of our Manager and its affiliates. Our Manager is managed by senior professionals of KKR Real Estate. These individuals evaluate, negotiate, execute and monitor our loans and investments and advise us regarding maintenance of our qualification as a REIT and exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act; therefore, our success will depend on their skill and management expertise and continued service with our Manager and its affiliates. Furthermore, there is increasing competition among financial sponsors, investment banks and other real estate debt investors for hiring and retaining qualified investment professionals and there can be no assurance that such professionals will continue to be associated with us, our Manager or its affiliates or that any replacements will perform well. The departure of any of the officers or key personnel of our Manager and its affiliates could have a material adverse effect on our performance.

Termination of the management agreement without cause will be difficult and costly. The management agreement may be terminated upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors, based upon (1) unsatisfactory performance by our Manager that is materially detrimental to us and our subsidiaries taken as a whole or (2) our determination that the management fee and incentive fee payable to our Manager are not fair, subject to our Manager'sManager’s right to prevent any termination due to unfair fees by accepting a reduction of management and/or incentive fees agreed to by at least two-thirds of our independent directors. We must provide our Manager 180 days'days’ written notice of any termination. Additionally, upon such a termination, or if we materially breach the management agreement and our Manager terminates the management agreement, the management agreement provides that we will pay our Manager a termination fee equal to three times the sum of the average annual management fee and the average annual incentive fee, in each case earned by our Manager during the 24-month period immediately preceding the most recently completed calendar quarter prior to the date of termination. These provisions increase the cost to us of terminating the management agreement and adversely affect our ability to terminate the management agreement without cause.

agreement. We have agreed to indemnify our Manager and its affiliates and their respective directors, officers, employees and stockholders with respect to all expenses, losses, damages, liabilities, demands, charges and claims arising from acts or omissions of our Manager not constituting bad faith, fraud, willful misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of duties, performed or not performed in good faith in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement. As a result, we could experience poor performance or losses for which our Manager would not be liable.

Some examples of conflicts of interest that may arise by virtue of our relationship with our Manager and KKR include:

pursuant to the management agreement and our Manager (or another managing entity) remains an affiliate of KKR under the license agreement. The license agreement may also be earlier terminated by either party as a result of certain breaches or for convenience upon 90 days'days’ prior written notice. KKR and its affiliates retain the right to continue using the "KKR"“KKR” name. We are also unable to preclude KKR and its affiliates from licensing or transferring ownership of the "KKR"“KKR” name to third parties, some of whom may compete with us. Consequently, we are unable to prevent any damage to goodwill that may occur as a result of the activities of KKR or others. Furthermore, in the event that the license agreement is terminated, we will be required to change our name and ticker symbol and cease using the "KKR"“KKR” name. Any of these events could disrupt our recognition in the marketplace, damage any goodwill we may have generated and otherwise harm our business.

In order to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, our sources of income, the nature of our investments in real estate and related assets, the amounts we distribute to our

stockholders and the ownership of our stock. We may also be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. Thus, compliance with REIT requirements may hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing profits.

In order to qualify as a REIT, we must also ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets. The remainder of our investments in securities cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer unless we and such issuer jointly elect for such issuer to be treated as a taxable REIT subsidiary under the Code. The total value of all of our investments in taxable REIT subsidiaries cannot exceed 20% of the value of our total assets. In addition, no more than 5% of the value of our assets can consist of the securities of any one issuer other than a taxable REIT subsidiary, and no more than 25% of our assets can consist of debt of "publicly offered"“publicly offered” REITs (i.e., REITs that are required to file annual and periodic reports with the SEC under the Exchange Act) that is not secured by real property or interests in real property. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we must dispose of a portion of our assets or otherwise come into compliance within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter in order to avoid losing our REIT status and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate or restructure otherwise attractive investments. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

The REIT provisions of the Code substantially limit our ability to hedge liabilities and assets. Any income from a properly identified hedging transaction we enter into to manage risk of interest rate changes with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or carry real estate assets or to manage risk of currency fluctuations with respect to our REIT qualifying income, or to offset any such hedging transaction, does not constitute "gross income"“gross income” for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests that we must satisfy in order to maintain our qualification as a REIT. To the extent that we enter into other types of hedging transactions, the income from those transactions is likely to be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both of these gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we intend to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or

To maintain our qualification as a REIT, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding capital stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities). Our charter provides that no person may beneficially or constructively own more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of any class or series of our outstanding capital stock, provided that KKR and certain of its affiliates are excluded from this limitation. Our board of directors, in its sole discretion, may exempt (prospectively or retroactively) a person from this limitation if it obtains such representations, covenants and undertakings as it deems appropriate to conclude that granting the exemption will not cause us to lose our status as a REIT. The constructive ownership rules under the Code and our charter are complex and may cause shares of our outstanding stock owned by a group of related individuals or entities to be deemed to be constructively owned by one individual. As a result, the acquisition of less than 9.8% of any class or series of our outstanding capital stock by an individual or entity could cause an individual to own constructively in excess of 9.8% of such class or series of our outstanding capital stock, and thus violate the ownership limit. Any attempted transfer of our capital stock that, if effective, would result in a violation of the ownership limit, will cause the number of shares causing the violation to automatically be transferred to a trust for the exclusive benefit of one or more charitable beneficiaries designated by us and the intended transferee will acquire no rights in the shares. Despite these restrictions, it is possible that there could be five or fewer individuals who own more than 50% in value of our outstanding capital stock, which could cause us to fail to continue to qualify as a REIT. In addition, there can be no assurance that our board of directors, as permitted in our charter, will not decrease this ownership limit in the future (provided, however, that a decreased stock ownership limit will not be effective for any person whose ownership of our stock is in excess of the decreased ownership limit until such person'sperson’s ownership percentage of our stock equals or falls below the decreased ownership limit).

The ownership limit could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests (and even if such change in control would not reasonably jeopardize our REIT status). The exemptions to the ownership limit granted to date may limit our board of directors'directors’ power to increase the ownership limit or grant further exemptions in the future.

In connection with our qualification as a REIT, we are required to annually distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (which does not equal net income, as calculated in accordance with GAAP), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. To satisfy this requirement, we may make distributions that are payable in cash and/or shares of our common stock at the election of each stockholder. As a publicly offered REIT, as long as at least 20% of the total dividend is available in cash and certain other requirements are satisfied, the IRS will treat the stock distribution as a dividend (to the extent applicable rules treat such distribution as being made out of our earnings and profits). Taxable stockholders receiving such distributions will be required to include the full amount of such distributions as ordinary dividend income to the extent of our current or accumulated earnings and profits, as determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, U.S. holders may be required to pay income taxes with respect to such distributions in excess of the cash portion of the distribution received. Accordingly, U.S. holders receiving a distribution of our shares may be required to sell shares received in such distribution or may be required to sell other stock or assets owned by them, at a time that may be disadvantageous, in order to satisfy any tax imposed on such distribution. If a U.S. holder sells the stock that it receives as part of the distribution in order to pay this tax, the sales proceeds may be less than the amount it must include in income with respect to the distribution, depending on the value of our shares at the time of the sale. Furthermore, with respect to certain non-U.S. holders, we may be required to withhold U.S. tax with respect to such distribution, including in respect of all or a portion of such distribution that is payable in stock, by withholding or disposing of part of the shares included in such distribution and using the proceeds of such disposition to satisfy the withholding tax imposed. In addition, if a significant number of our stockholders determine to sell shares of our common stock in order to pay taxes owed on dividend income, such sale may put downward pressure on the market price of our common stock.

The maximum U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to qualified dividend income payable to certain non-corporate U.S. holders is 20%. Dividends payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for the reduced qualified dividend rates. For taxable years beginning before January 1, 2026, however, non-corporate taxpayers may deduct up to 20% of certain pass-through business income, including “qualified REIT dividends” (generally, dividends received by a REIT shareholder that are not designated as capital gain dividends or qualified dividend income), subject to certain limitations, resulting in an effective maximum U.S. federal income tax rate of 29.6% on such income. Although the reduced U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to qualified dividend income does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends payable by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends and the reduced corporate tax rate (currently 21%) could cause certain non-corporate investors to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including our common stock.

To qualify as a REIT, we generally must distribute annually to our stockholders at least 90% of our net taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends-paid deduction and excluding net capital gains. We will be subject to regular corporate income taxes on any undistributed REIT taxable income each year, including net capital gains. Additionally, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on any amount by which distributions paid by us in any calendar year are less than the sum of 85% of our ordinary income, 95% of our capital gain net income and 100% of our undistributed income from previous years.

income or in advance of the corresponding cash flow from the assets referred to as "phantom income," and this may be more likely under the new rules regarding the timing of income on such assets that applied beginning in 2018 (or, with respect to debt securities with OID, apply beginning in 2019).“phantom income.” In addition, if a borrower with respect to a particular debt instrument encounters financial difficulty rendering it unable to pay stated interest as due, we may nonetheless be required to continue to recognize the unpaid interest as taxable income with the effect that we will recognize income but will not have a corresponding amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders. Finally, we may be required under the terms of indebtedness that we incur to use cash received from interest payments to make principal payments on that indebtedness, with the effect of recognizing income but not having a corresponding amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders. Also, in certain circumstances, our ability to deduct interest expenses for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be limited.

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

We have invested and may invest in mortgage loans and mezzanine loans in which the underlying real property was under construction. Such mortgage loans (and mezzanine loans, to the extent they are otherwise qualifying) generally will be treated as real estate assets for purposes of the REIT asset tests, and interest derived from such loans will be treated as qualifying mortgage interest for purposes of the REIT 75% income test, provided that the “loan value” of the real property securing the loan is equal to or greater than the highest outstanding principal amount of the loan during any taxable year. With respect to construction loans, the value of the real property securing the loan is the fair value of the land plus the reasonably estimated cost of improvements or developments (other than personal property) that secure the loan and that are to be constructed from the proceeds of the loan. The IRS could challenge our estimates as to the loan value of the real property associated with such construction loans. If such a challenge were sustained and all or a portion of the loan was not treated as a real estate asset, we could fail to qualify as a REIT, unless we are able to qualify for a statutory REIT “savings” provision, which may require us to pay a significant penalty tax to maintain our REIT qualification.

We have invested and may invest in the future in preferred equity investments and mezzanine loans. There is limited case law and administrative guidance addressing whether instruments similar to our mezzanine loans and preferred equity investments will be treated as equity or debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We typically do not anticipate obtaining private letter rulings from the IRS or opinions of counsel on the characterization of those investments for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If the IRS successfully recharacterizes a mezzanine loan or preferred equity investment as equity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we would be treated as owning the assets held by the partnership or limited liability company that issued the security

and we would be treated as receiving our proportionate share of the income of that entity. If that partnership or limited liability company owned nonqualifying assets or earned nonqualifying income, we may not be able to satisfy all of the REIT income or asset tests. Alternatively, if we are treating a mezzanine loan or preferred equity investment as equity for U.S. federal income tax purposes and the IRS successfully recharacterizes the investment as debt, then that investment may be treated as a nonqualifying asset for purposes of the 75% asset test and as producing nonqualifying income for 75% gross income test. In addition, such an investment may be subject to the 10% value test and the 5% asset tests. Accordingly, we could fail to qualify as a REIT if the IRS successfully challenges our characterization of our mezzanine loans or preferred equity investments for U.S. federal income tax purposes unless we are able to qualify for a statutory REIT "savings"“savings” provision, which may require us to pay a significant penalty tax to maintain our REIT qualification.

We have entered into financing arrangements that are structured as sale and repurchase agreements pursuant to which we nominally sell certain of our assets to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase these assets at a later date in exchange for a purchase price. Economically, these agreements are financings that are secured by the assets sold pursuant thereto. We believe that we are treated for REIT asset and income test purposes as the owner of the assets that are the subject of such sale and repurchase agreements notwithstanding that such agreements may transfer record ownership of the

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

We may enter into securitization transactions and other financing transactions that could result in us, or a portion of our assets, being treated as a taxable mortgage pool for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If we enter into such a transaction in the future, we could be taxable at the highest corporate income tax rate on a portion of the income arising from a taxable mortgage pool, referred to as "excess“excess inclusion income,"” that is allocable to the percentage of our shares held in record name by disqualified organizations (generally tax-exempt entities that are exempt from the tax on unrelated business taxable income, such as state pension plans and charitable remainder trusts and government entities). In that case, we could reduce distributions to such stockholders by the amount of tax paid by us that is attributable to such stockholder'sstockholder’s ownership.

If we were to realize excess inclusion income, IRS guidance indicates that the excess inclusion income would be allocated among our stockholders in proportion to the dividends paid. Excess inclusion income cannot be offset by losses of a stockholder. If the stockholder is a tax-exempt entity and not a disqualified organization, then this income would be fully taxable as unrelated business taxable income under Section 512 of the Code. If the stockholder is a foreign person, it would be subject to U.S. federal income tax at the maximum tax rate and withholding will be required on this income without reduction or exemption pursuant to any otherwise applicable income tax treaty.

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

A REIT may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a taxable REIT subsidiary. A corporation of which a taxable REIT subsidiary directly or indirectly owns more than 35% of the voting power or value of the stock will automatically be treated as a taxable REIT subsidiary. Overall, no more than 20% of the gross value of a REIT'sREIT’s assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. In addition, the taxable REIT subsidiary rules limit the deductibility of interest paid or accrued by a taxable REIT subsidiary to its parent REIT to assure that the taxable REIT subsidiary is subject to an appropriate level of corporate taxation. The rules also impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a taxable REIT subsidiary and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm'sarm’s length basis.

Domestic taxable REIT subsidiaries that we own or may form will pay U.S. federal, state and local income tax on their taxable income, and their after-tax net income will be available for distribution to us but will not be required to be distributed to us, unless necessary to maintain our REIT qualification. In certain circumstances, the ability of our taxable REIT subsidiaries to deduct interest expenses for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be limited. While we plan to monitor the aggregate value of the securities of our taxable REIT subsidiaries and intend to conduct our affairs so that such securities will represent less than 20% of the value of our total assets, there can be no assurance that we will be able to comply with the taxable REIT subsidiary limitation or avoid the application of the 100% excise tax discussed above in all market conditions.

In recent years, numerous legislative, judicial and administrative changes have been made in the provisions of U.S. federal income tax laws applicable to investments similar to an investment in shares of our common stock. TheAdditional changes underto the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) significantly changed the U.S. federal income tax laws applicableare likely to businesses and their owners, including REITs and their stockholders. Additional, technical corrections or other amendments to the TCJA or administrative guidance interpreting the TCJA may be forthcoming at any time.occur. We cannot predict the long-term effect of the TCJAany recent changes or any future law changes on REITs and their stockholders.

Any such changes could have an adverse effect on an investment in our shares or on the market value or the resale potential of our assets. You are urged to consult with your tax advisor with respect to the impact of recent legislation on your investment in our shares and the status of legislative, regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect on an investment in our shares. Although REITs generally receive certain tax advantages compared to entities taxed as regular corporations, it is possible that the TCJA and future legislation would result in a REIT having fewer tax advantages, and it could become more advantageous for a company that invests in real estate to elect to be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a corporation. Our charter provides our board of directors with the power, under certain circumstances, to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election and cause us to be taxed as a regular corporation, without the vote of our stockholders. Our board of directors has duties to us and could only cause such changes in our tax treatment if it determines in good faith that such changes are in the best interest of our company.

our special voting preferred stock is transferred to any person other than KKR or its affiliates, the share of our special voting preferred stock gives KKR REFT Asset Holdings the right, solely with respect to the election of members of our board of directors, to vote the number of votes necessary to equal a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in an election of directors and thereby control our policy and operations. In addition, pursuant to our stockholders agreement, so long as KKR REFT Asset Holdings and its affiliates own at least 25% of the outstanding shares of our common stock, KKR REFT Asset Holdings will have the right to nominate at least half of the directors to our board of directors. See "—“—Risks Related to Our Relationship with Our Manager and Its Affiliates."

By virtue of KKR'sKKR’s stock ownership and voting power, in addition to its board designation rights, KKR has the power to significantly influence our business and affairs and is able to influence the outcome of matters required to be submitted to stockholders for approval, including the election of our directors, amendments to our charter, mergers or sales of assets. The influence exerted by KKR over our business and affairs might not be consistent with the interests of some or all of our stockholders. In addition, the concentration of ownership in our officers or directors or stockholders associated with them may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of our company, including transactions that would be in the best interests of our stockholders and would result in receipt of a premium to the price of our shares of common stock (and even if such change in control would not reasonably jeopardize our qualification as a REIT), and might negatively affect the market price of our common stock.

We intend to utilize these exemptions. Accordingly, for so long as we utilize these exemptions, you will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NYSE.

Some of the provisions of Maryland law and our charter and bylaws discussed below could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so might be beneficial to our stockholders by providing them with the opportunity to sell their shares at a premium to the then current market price.

directors, without stockholder approval, to classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common stock and preferred stock into other classes or series of stock and to amend our charter to increase or decrease the aggregate number of shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series that are authorized by the charter to be issued. Preferred stock may be issued in one or more classes or series, the terms of which may be determined by our board of directors without further action by stockholders. Prior to issuance of any such class or series, our board of directors will set the terms of any such class or series, including the preferences, conversion or other rights, voting powers, restrictions, limitations as to dividends or other distributions, qualifications and terms and conditions of redemption. The issuance of any preferred stock could materially adversely affect the rights of holders of common stock and, therefore, could reduce the value of the common stock. In addition, specific rights granted to future holders of our preferred stock could be used to restrict our ability to merge with, or sell assets to, a third party. The power of our board of directors to cause us to issue preferred stock could, in certain circumstances, make it more difficult, delay, discourage, prevent or make it more costly to acquire or effect a change in control, thereby preserving the current stockholders'stockholders’ control.

The super-majority vote requirements do not apply if, among other considerations, the transaction complies with a minimum price and form of consideration requirements prescribed by the statute. The statute permits various exemptions from its provisions, including business combinations that are exempted by the board of directors prior to the time that an interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. Our board of directors has by resolution exempted business combinations between us and any other person, provided that such business combination is first approved by our board of directors.

The Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act of the Maryland General Corporation Law provides that a holder of control shares of a Maryland corporation acquired in a control share acquisition has no voting rights with respect to the control shares except to the extent approved by a vote of two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast on the matter. Shares owned by the acquiror, by officers or by employees who are directors of the corporation are excluded from shares entitled to vote on the matter. Control shares are voting shares of stock that, if aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquiror or in respect of which the acquiror is able to exercise or direct the exercise of voting power (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy), would entitle the acquiror to exercise voting power in electing directors within one of the following ranges of voting power:

Control shares do not include shares the acquiror is then entitled to vote as a result of having previously obtained stockholder approval or shares acquired directly from the corporation. A control share acquisition means the acquisition of issued and outstanding control shares, subject to certain exceptions.

A person who has made or proposes to make a control share acquisition may compel the board of directors of the corporation to call a special meeting of stockholders to be held within 50 days of demand to consider the voting rights of the shares. The right to compel the calling of a special meeting is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including an undertaking to pay the expenses of the meeting. If no request for a meeting is made, the corporation may itself present the question at any stockholders meeting.

If voting rights are not approved at the meeting or if the acquiror does not deliver an acquiring person statement as required by the statute, then the corporation may, subject to certain limitations and conditions, redeem for fair value any or all of the control shares, except those for which voting rights have previously been approved. Fair value is determined, without regard to the absence of voting rights for the control shares, as of the date of any meeting of stockholders at which the voting rights of the shares are considered and not approved or, if no meeting is held, as of the date of the last control share acquisition by the acquiror. If voting rights for control shares are approved at a stockholders meeting and the acquiror becomes entitled to exercise or direct the exercise of a majority of the voting power, all other stockholders may exercise appraisal rights. The fair value of the shares as determined for purposes of appraisal rights may not be less than the highest price per share paid by the acquiror in the control share acquisition.

Our bylaws contain a provision exempting any acquisition of our stock by any person from the foregoing provisions on control shares, which may be amended by our board of directors. In the event that our bylaws are amended to modify or eliminate this provision, acquisitions of our common stock may constitute a control share acquisition.

Our charter limits the liability of our present and former directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Under Maryland law, our present and former directors and officers will not have any liability to us and our stockholders for money damages other than liability resulting from:

Our charter authorizesand bylaws require us to indemnify our present and former directors and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Our bylaws require us to indemnify each present and former director or officer, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, in the defense of any proceeding to which he or she is made, or threatened to be made, a party by reason of

his or her service to us. In addition, we may be obligated to pay or reimburse the defense costs incurred by our present and former directors and officers without requiring a preliminary determination of their ultimate entitlement to indemnification.

Our charter provides that, subject to the rights of any series of preferred stock, a director may be removed only for cause upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of directors. Under our charter, cause means conviction of a felony or a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction holding that a director caused demonstrable, material harm to our company through bad faith or active and deliberate dishonesty. Vacancies may be filled only by a majority of the remaining directors in office, even if less than a quorum. These requirements make it more difficult to change our management by removing and replacing directors and may prevent a change in control of our company that is in the best interests of our stockholders.

Our charter contains provisions designed to reduce or eliminate duties of KKR and its affiliates and of our directors or any person our directors control to refrain from competing with us or to present to us business opportunities that otherwise may exist in the absence of such charter provisions. Under our charter, KKR and its affiliates and our directors or any person our directors control will not be obligated to present to us opportunities unless those opportunities are expressly offered to such person in his or her capacity as a director or officer of our company and those persons will be able to engage in competing activities without any restriction imposed as a result of KKR'sKKR’s or its affiliates'affiliates’ status as a stockholder or KKR affiliates'affiliates’ status as officers or directors of our company.

We are generally required to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain, each year for us to qualify as a REIT under the Code, which

As a result, no assurance can be given that the level of any distributions we make to our stockholders will achieve a market yield or increase or even be maintained over time, any of which could materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock. We may use net operating losses, to the extent available and subject to certain limitations, carried forward to offset future net taxable income, and therefore reduce our dividend requirements. In addition, some of our distributions may include a return of capital, which would reduce the amount of capital available to operate our business.

In addition, distributions that we make to our stockholders will generally be taxable to our stockholders as ordinary income. REIT dividends (other than capital gain dividends) received by non-corporate stockholders may be eligible for a 20% reduction. However, a portion of our distributions may be designated by us as long-term capital gains to the extent that they are attributable to capital gain income recognized by us or may constitute a return of capital to the extent that they exceed our earnings and profits as determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes. A return of capital is not taxable, but has the effect of reducing the basis of a stockholder'sstockholder’s investment in our common stock.