A number of entities compete with us to make the types of loans and investments we seek to originate or acquire. Our profitability depends, in large part, on our ability to originate or acquire target assets on attractive terms. In originating or acquiring target assets, we compete with a variety of institutional lenders and investors, including other REITs, specialty finance companies, public and private funds (including funds that KKR or its affiliates may in the future sponsor, advise and/or manage), commercial and investment banks, commercial finance and insurance companies and other financial institutions. Several other REITs have raised, or are expected to raise, significant amounts of capital, and may have investment objectives that overlap with ours, which may create additional competition for lending and investment opportunities. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that are not available to us, such as the U.S. government. Many of our competitors are not subject to the operating constraints associated with REIT rule compliance or maintenance of an exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of loans and investments, offer more attractive pricing or other terms and establish more relationships than us. Furthermore, competition for originations of and investments in our target assets may lead to the yields of such assets decreasing, which may further limit our ability to generate satisfactory returns. In addition, changes in the financial regulatory regime could decrease the current restrictions on banks and other financial institutions and allow them to compete with us for investment opportunities that were previously not available to them. “—RisksSee “Risks Related to Our Company—Changes in laws or regulations governing our operations, changes in the interpretation thereof 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, subject us to increased competition or otherwise adversely affect our business.business” below.

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

In addition, our investment strategy with respect to certain types of investments may depend, in part, on our ability to enter into satisfactory relationships with joint ventures, operating partners and/or strategic co-investors. There can be no assurance that current relationships with such parties will continue (whether on currently applicable terms or otherwise) or that we will be able to establish relationships with other such persons in the future if desired and on terms favorable to us.

We seek to invest primarily in debt investments in or relating to real estate assets. Any deterioration of real estate fundamentals generally, and in the United States in particular, could negatively impact our performance, increase the default risk applicable to borrowers, and/or make it relatively more difficult for us to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns. Changes in general economic conditions, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, will affect the creditworthiness of borrowers and/or the value of underlying real estate collateral relating to our investments and may include economic and/or market fluctuations, changes in environmental, zoning and other laws, casualty or condemnation losses, regulatory limitations on rents or moratoriums against tenant evictions or foreclosures, decreases in property values, changes in the appeal of properties to tenants, changes in supply and demand of real estate products, fluctuations in real estate fundamentals (including average occupancy and room rates for hotel properties), energy and supply shortages, various uninsured or uninsurable risks, natural disasters, terrorism, acts of war, outbreaks of pandemic or contagious diseases, changes in government regulations (such as rent control), political and legislative

We cannot predict the degree to which economic conditions generally, and the conditions for real estate debt investing in particular, will improve or decline. Any declines in the performance of the U.S. and global economies or in the real estate debt markets could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

In recent years, interest rates had remained at relatively low levels on a historical basis. However, in 2022, in light of increasing inflation, the U.S. Federal Reserve increased interest rates seven times. The U.S. Federal Reserve has also indicated that it expects continued increases in interest rates and/or credit spreads may negatively affect demand for loansin 2023 and 2024. Any such increases would increase our borrowers interest payments and could result in higher borrower default rates, while decreases in interest rates and/or credit spreads may decrease our interest income on floating-rate investments and may lead to a higher prepayment rates on our loans.rates. Such increases could also adversely affect commercial real estate property values.

Our operating results depend, in part, on differences between the income earned on our investments, net of credit losses, and our financing costs. The yields we earn on our floating-rate assets and our borrowing costs tend to move in the same direction in response to changes in interest rates. However, one can rise or fall faster than the other, causing our net interest margin to

expand or contract. In addition, we could experience reductions in the yield on our investments and an increase in the cost of our financing. Although we seek to match the terms of our liabilities to the expected lives of loans that we acquire or originate, circumstances may arise in which our liabilities are shorter in duration than our assets, resulting in their adjusting faster in response to changes in interest rates. For any period during which our investments are not match-funded, the income earned on such investments may respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Consequently, changes in interest rates, particularly short-term interest rates, may immediately and significantly decrease our results of operations and cash flows and the market value of our investments. Interest rate and credit spread fluctuations resulting in our interest and related expense exceeding interest and related income would result in operating losses for us, and any such reduction in our net interest income could materially impair our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders. Changes in the level of interest rates and credit spreads may also affect our ability to make loans or investments and the value of our loans and investments.

Our ability to manage our portfolio of loans and investments may be limited by the form in which they are made. In certain situations, we may:

Therefore, we may not be able to exercise control over all aspects of our loans or investments. Such financial assets may involve risks not present in investments where senior creditors, junior creditors, servicers or third-party controlling investors are not involved. Our rights to control the process following a borrower default may be subject to the rights of senior or junior creditors or servicers whose interests may not be aligned with ours. A partner or co-venturer may have financial difficulties resulting in a negative impact on such asset, may have economic or business interests or goals that are inconsistent with ours, or may be in a position to take action contrary to our investment objectives. In addition, we will generally pay all or a portion of the expenses relating to our joint ventures and we may, in certain circumstances, be liable for the actions of our partners or co-venturers.

CRE debt instruments (e.g., mortgages, mezzanine loans and preferred equity) that are secured by commercial property are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss that are greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential property. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of the property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Net operating income of an income-producing property can be affected by, among other things:

In addition, we are exposed to the risk of judicial proceedings with our borrowers and entities in which we invest, including bankruptcy or other litigation, as a strategy to avoid foreclosure or enforcement of other rights by us as a lender or investor. In the event that any of the properties or entities underlying or collateralizing our loans or investments experiences any of the foregoing events or occurrences, the value of, and return on, such investments could decline and could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We have in the past and may in the futureprimarily invest in transitional loans to borrowers who are typically seeking short-term capital to be used in an acquisition or rehabilitation of a property. The typical borrower under a transitional loan has usually identified an undervalued asset that has been under-managed and/or is located in a recovering market. If the market in which the asset is located fails to improve according to the borrower’s projections, or if the borrower fails to improve the quality of the asset’s management and/or the value of the asset, the borrower may not receive a sufficient return on the asset to satisfy the transitional loan, and we bear the risk that we may not recover some or all of our investment.

Furthermore, the renovation, refurbishment or expansion of a property by a borrower involves risks of cost overruns and noncompletion. Estimates of the costs of improvements to bring an acquired property up to standards established for the market position intended for that property may prove inaccurate. Other risks may include rehabilitation costs exceeding original estimates, possibly making a project uneconomical, environmental risks, delays in legal and other approvals (e.g., for condominiums) and rehabilitation and subsequent leasing of the property not being completed on schedule. If such renovation is not completed in a timely manner, or if it costs more than expected, the borrower may experience a prolonged reduction of net

operating income and may not be able to make payments on our investment on a timely basis or at all, which could result in significant losses.

In addition, borrowers usually use the proceeds of a conventional mortgage to repay a transitional loan. Transitional loans therefore are subject to risks of a borrower’s inability to obtain permanent financing to repay the transitional loan. In the event of any default under transitional loans that may be held by us, we bear the risk of loss of principal and non-payment of interest and fees to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the mortgage collateral and the principal amount and unpaid interest of the transitional loan. To the extent we suffer such losses with respect to these transitional loans, it could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Generally, our borrowers may repay their loans prior to their stated final maturities. In periods of declining interest rates and/or credit spreads, prepayment rates on loans generally increase. If general interest rates orand credit spreads 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. We may not be able to reinvest the principal repaid at the same or higher yield of the original investment. Conversely, in periods of rising interest rates, prepayment rates are likely to decrease and the number of our borrowers who exercise extension options, which could extend beyond the term of certain secured financing agreements we use to finance our loan investments, is likely to increase. This could have a negative impact on our results of operations, and in some situations, we may be forced to sell assets to maintain adequate liquidity, which could cause us to incur losses.

In addition, the value of our assets may be affected by prepayment rates on loans. If we originate or acquire mortgage-related securities or a pool of mortgage securities, we anticipate that the underlying mortgages will prepay at a projected rate generating an expected yield. If we purchase assets at a premium to par value, when borrowers prepay their loans faster than expected, the corresponding prepayments on the mortgage-related securities may reduce the expected yield on such securities because we will have to amortize the related premium on an accelerated basis. Conversely, if we purchase assets at a discount to par value, when borrowers prepay their loans slower than expected, the decrease in corresponding prepayments on the mortgage-related securities may reduce the expected yield on such securities because we will not be able to accrete the related discount as quickly as originally anticipated. In addition, as a result of the risk of prepayment, the market value of the prepaid assets may benefit less than other fixed income securities from declining interest rates.

Prepayment rates on loans may be affected by a number of factors including, but not limited to, the then-current level of interest rates and credit spreads, fluctuations in asset values, the availability of mortgage credit, the relative economic vitality of the area in which the related properties are located, the servicing of the loans, possible changes in tax laws, other opportunities for investment, and other economic, social, geographic, demographic and legal factors and other factors 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. If prepayment rates exceed our expectations, we may have greater difficulty in redeploying the proceeds into new investment opportunities, which may significantly increase our cash balance and exacerbate the risks related to our cash management strategy. For further discussion of the risks related to capital deployment, see “—Difficulty“Difficulty in redeploying the proceeds from repayments of our existing loans and investments may cause our financial performance and returns to investors to suffer” below.

In light of our investment strategy and the need to be able to invest capital quickly to capitalize on potential investment opportunities, we may from time to time maintain cash pending deployment into investments, which may at times be significant. Such cash may be held in an account of ours for the benefit of stockholders or may be invested in money market accounts or other similar temporary investments. While the duration of such holding period is expected to be relatively short, in the event we are unable to find suitable investments, such cash positions may be maintained for longer periods. It is not anticipated that the temporary investment of such cash into money market accounts or other similar temporary investments

pending deployment into investments will generate significant interest, and such low interest payments on the temporarily invested cash may adversely affect our financial performance and returns to investors.

In addition, we have also invested in CMBS, and may from time to time invest in CMBS and CRE CLO securities as part of our short-term cash management strategy. Subordinate interests such as CMBS, CRE CLO securities and similar structured finance investments generally are not actively traded and are relatively illiquid investments. Volatility in CMBS and CRE CLO trading markets may cause the value of these investments to decline. In addition, if the underlying mortgage portfolio has been overvalued by the originator, or if the values subsequently decline and, as a result, less collateral value is available to satisfy interest and principal payments and any other fees in connection with the trust or other conduit arrangement for such securities, we may incur significant losses. For further discussion of the risks related to such investments, see “—Our“Our investments in CMBS and other similarly structured finance investments, as well as those we structure, sponsor or arrange, would pose additional risks, including the risks of the securitization process, the risk that we will not be able to recover some or all of our

Our Manager’s loss estimates based on its due diligence process may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates. If our Manager underestimates the asset-level losses relative to the price we pay for a particular investment, we may experience losses with respect to such investment. Moreover, investment analyses and decisions by our Manager may frequently be required to be undertaken on an expedited basis to take advantage of investment opportunities. In such cases, the information available to our Manager at the time of making an investment decision may be limited, and it may not have access to detailed information regarding such investment. Further, certain considerations covered by our Manager’s diligence, such as ESG, are continuously evolving, including from an assessment, regulatory and compliance standpoint, and our Manager may not accurately or fully anticipate such evolution. Therefore, we cannot assure you that our Manager will have knowledge of all circumstances that may adversely affect such investment.

In addition, it is difficult for real estate debt investors in certain circumstances to receive full transparency with respect to underlying investments because transactions are often effectuated on an indirect basis through pools or conduit vehicles rather than directly with the borrower. Loan structures or the terms of investments may make it difficult for us to monitor and evaluate investments. Therefore, we cannot assure you that our Manager will have knowledge of all information that may adversely affect such investment.

We invest in debt instruments (including, indirectly through RECOP I, in CMBS B-Pieces) and preferred equity that are subordinated or otherwise junior in an issuer’s capital structure and that involve privately negotiated structures. Our investments in subordinated debt and mezzanine tranches of a borrower’s capital structure and our remedies with respect thereto, including the ability to foreclose on any collateral securing such investments, are subject to the rights of any senior creditors and, to the extent applicable, contractual intercreditor and/or participation agreement provisions. Significant losses related to such loans or investments could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Investments in subordinated debt involve greater credit risk of default than the senior classes of the issue or series. As a result, with respect to our investments in CMBS B-Pieces, mezzanine loans and other subordinated debt, we would potentially receive payments or interest distributions after, and must bear the effects of losses or defaults on the senior debt (including underlying senior loans, senior mezzanine loans, B-Notes, preferred equity or senior CMBS bonds, as applicable) before, the holders of other more senior tranches of debt instruments with respect to such issuer. As the terms of such loans and investments are

Mezzanine loans are by their nature structurally subordinated to more senior property-level financings. If a borrower defaults on our mezzanine loan or on debt senior to our loan, or if the borrower is in bankruptcy, our mezzanine loan will be satisfied only after the property-level debt and other senior debt is paid in full. In addition, mezzanine loans may have higher loan-to-value ratios than conventional mortgage loans, resulting in less equity in the property and increasing the risk of loss of principal. As a result, a partial loss in the value of the underlying collateral can result in a total loss of the value of the mezzanine loan. Moreover, even if we are able to foreclose on the underlying collateral following a default on a mezzanine loan, we would be substituted for the defaulting borrower and, to the extent income generated on the underlying property is insufficient to meet outstanding debt obligations on the property, may need to commit substantial additional capital and/or deliver a replacement guarantee by a creditworthy entity, which could include us, to stabilize the property and prevent additional defaults to lenders with existing liens on the property. Significant losses related to our mezzanine loans and our indirect CMBS B-Piece investments would result in operating losses for us and may limit our ability to make distributions to

our stockholders.

Investments in preferred equity involve a greater risk of loss than conventional debt financing due to a variety of factors, including their non-collateralized nature and subordinated ranking to other loans and liabilities of the entity in which such preferred equity is held. Accordingly, if the issuer defaults on our investment, we would only be able to proceed against such entity in accordance with the terms of the preferred equity, and not against any property owned by such entity. Furthermore, in the event of bankruptcy or foreclosure, we would only be able to recoup our investment after all lenders to, and other creditors of, such entity are paid in full. As a result, we may lose all or a significant part of our investment, which could result in significant losses.

In addition, our investments in senior loans may be effectively subordinated to the extent we borrow under a warehouse loan (which can be in the form of a repurchase agreement) or similar facility and pledge the senior loan as collateral. Under these arrangements, the lender has a right to repayment of the borrowed amount before we can collect on the value of the senior loan, and therefore if the value of the pledged senior loan decreases below the amount we have borrowed, we would experience a loss.

We are not required to observe specific diversification criteria, except as may be set forth in the investment guidelines adopted by our board of directors. Therefore, our investments in our target assets may at times be concentrated in certain property types that may be subject to higher risk of default or foreclosure, or secured by properties concentrated in a limited number of geographic locations.

To the extent that our assets are concentrated in any one region, sponsor or type of asset, economic and business downturns generally relating to such type of asset, sponsor or region may result in defaults on a number of our investments within a short time period, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, because of asset concentrations, even modest changes in the value of the underlying real estate assets could have a significant impact on the value of our investment. As a result of any high levels of concentration, any adverse economic, political, climate-related or other conditions that disproportionately affects those geographic areas or asset classes could have a magnified adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition, and the value of our stockholders’ investments could vary more widely than if we invested in a more diverse portfolio of loans.

We have invested and may from time to time invest in pools or tranches of CMBS and other similar securities. The collateral underlying CMBS generally consists of commercial mortgages or real property that have a multifamily or commercial use, such as retail space, office buildings, warehouse property and hotels. CMBS have been issued in a variety of issuances, with varying structures including senior and subordinated classes. Our investments in CMBS are subject to losses. In general, losses on a mortgaged property securing a senior loan included in a securitization will be borne first by the equity holder of the property,

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 current and future 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.

If we invest in a CMBS B-Piece because a sponsor of a CMBS utilizes us as an eligible third-party purchaser to satisfy the risk retention rules under the Dodd-Frank Act, we will be required to meet certain conditions, including holding the related CMBS B-Piece, without transferring or hedging the CMBS B-Piece, for a significant period of time (at least five years), which could prevent us from mitigating losses on the CMBS B-Piece. Even if we seek to transfer the CMBS B-Piece after five years, any subsequent purchaser of the CMBS B-Piece will be required to satisfy the same conditions that we were required to satisfy when we acquired the interest from the CMBS sponsor. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that any secondary market liquidity will exist for such CMBS B-Pieces.

We currently have and expect to make our CMBS B-Piece investments indirectly through our investment in an aggregator vehicle alongside RECOP I, a KKR-managed investment fund. See “—Risks“Risks Related to Our Relationship with Our Manager and Its Affiliates—There are various conflicts of interest in our relationship with KKR, including with our Manager and in the allocation of investment opportunities to KKR investment vehicles and us, which could result in decisions that are not in the best interests of our stockholders” and Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Our Portfolio.”

Some of our investments may be rated by rating agencies. Any credit ratings on our investments are subject to ongoing evaluation by credit rating agencies, and we cannot assure you that any such ratings will not be downgraded or withdrawn by a rating agency in the future if, in its judgment, circumstances warrant. If rating agencies assign a lower-than-expected rating or reduce or withdraw, or indicate that they may reduce or withdraw, their ratings of our investments in the future, the value and

liquidity of our investments could significantly decline, which would adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio and could result in losses upon disposition or the failure of borrowers to satisfy their debt service obligations to us.

We may find it necessary or desirable to foreclose on certain of the loans we originate or acquire, have acquired and may in the future further acquire through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, the ownership of property securing our loans, 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.”owned”. Owning and operating real property involves risks that are different (and in many ways more significant) than the risks faced in owning an asseta loan secured by that property. The costs associated with operating and redeveloping the property, including any operating shortfalls and significant capital expenditures, could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. In addition, at such time that we elect to sell such property, 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. Furthermore, any costs or delays involved in the maintenance or liquidation of the underlying property will further reduce the net proceeds and, thus, increase the loss.

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’s position in the loan. In some states, foreclosure actions can

We may notalso be sufficientsubject to recover our cost basis in the loan, resulting in a loss. Furthermore, any costs or delays involvedenvironmental liabilities arising from such properties acquired in the foreclosure process. Under various U.S. federal, state and local laws, an owner or operator of real property may become liable for the loancosts of removal of certain hazardous substances released on its property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release of such hazardous substances. If we assume ownership of any properties underlying our loans, the presence of hazardous substances on a liquidationproperty may adversely affect our ability to sell the property and we may incur substantial remediation costs. As a result, the discovery of the underlying property will further reduce the net proceedsmaterial environmental liabilities attached to such properties could materially and thus, increase any such loss toadversely affect 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 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.

While our investment strategy focuses primarily on investments in “performing” real estate-related interests, our investment program may include making distressed investments from time to time (e.g., investments in defaulted, out-of-favor or distressed loans and debt securities) or may involve investments that become “non-performing” following our acquisition thereof. Certain

of our investments may, therefore, include specific securities of companies that typically are highly leveraged, with significant burdens on cash flow and, therefore, involve a high degree of risk of substantial or total losses on our investments and in certain circumstances, may 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.

During an economic downturn or recession, securities of financially troubled or operationally troubled issuers are more likely to go into default than securities of other issuers. Securities of financially troubled issuers and operationally troubled issuers are less liquid and more volatile than securities of companies not experiencing financial difficulties. The market prices of such securities are subject to erratic and abrupt market movements and the spread between bid and ask prices may be greater than normally expected. Investment in the securities of financially troubled issuers and operationally troubled issuers involves a high degree of credit and market risk.

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.restructures and improve the operations of our borrower entities. 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 restructuring programs. Further, such modifications and/or restructuring may entail, among other things, a substantial reduction in the interest rate and a substantial writedownwrite-off of the principal of such loan, debt securities or other interests. However, even if a restructuring were successfully accomplished, a risk exists that, upon maturity of such real estate loan, debt securities or other interests replacement “takeout” financing will not be available.

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

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 or write-off 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 downwrite-off 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 determine the fair value of 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

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

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 loans. It is likely, therefore, that these risk retention rules will increase the administrative and operational costs of asset securitizations.

All of our assets, including any investments our Manager may otherwise implement on our behalf strategies or discretionary approaches it believes from time to timemade by us and any funds held by us, may be best suitedavailable to prevailing market conditions in furtherancesatisfy all of that purpose,our liabilities and other obligations. If we become subject to a liability, parties seeking to have the supervisionliability satisfied may have recourse to our assets generally and direction of our board of directors and the limitations set forth in our organizational documents and governing agreements. There cannot be no assurance that our Manager will be successful in implementinglimited to any particular asset, such as the asset representing the investment strategy. Our Manager may change our investment strategy or asset allocation at any time withoutgiving rise to the consent of stockholders, which could result in our Manager making investments that are different from, andliability.

Accounting rules for loan impairment,current expected credit losses, 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 loancredit losses is evaluated on a quarterly basis. The determination of our provision for loancredit 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, issuedon January 1, 2020, we adopted Accounting Standards Update 2016-13, “Financial Instruments—Credit Losses, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments (Topic 326),” which replacesreplaced 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 became effective for us for fiscal 2020 and for interim periods therein, we are required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is to be based on 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 GAAP, which delayed recognition until it was probable a loss has been incurred. Accordingly, we expect that the adoption of the CECL model has materially affected, and will continue to materially affect, how we determine our allowance for loan losses and could require us to significantly increase our allowance and recognize provisions for loancredit losses earlier in the lending cycle. Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for loancredit losses. If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for loancredit losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely heavilycurrently 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 KKR’s financial, accounting, communicationsour available capital, our ability to obtain and other data processing systems. Such systemsaccess 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’ and rating agencies’ estimate of the stability of our investment portfolio’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 borrow funds under master repurchase agreements with various counterparties. The documents that govern these measures willmaster 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 maintain our exclusion from 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 protection.the best outcome for our stockholders.

These types of financing arrangements also involve the risk that the market value of the assets pledged or sold by us to the provider of the financing may decline in value, in which case the lender or counterparty may require us to provide additional collateral or lead to margin calls that may require us to repay all or a portion of the funds advanced. We may not have the funds available to repay our debt at that time, which would likely result in defaults unless we are able to raise the funds from alternative sources including by selling assets at a time when we might not otherwise choose to do so, which we may not be able to achieve on favorable terms or at all. Posting additional margin would reduce our cash available to make other, higher yielding investments (thereby decreasing our return on equity). If such systems are compromised, do not operate properlywe cannot meet these requirements, the lender or are disabled,counterparty could accelerate our indebtedness, increase the interest rate on advanced funds and terminate our ability to borrow funds from it, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and ability to implement our investment strategy. In the case of repurchase transactions, if the value of the underlying security has declined as of the end of that term, or if we faildefault on our obligations under the repurchase agreement, we will likely incur a loss on our repurchase transactions.

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:

To the extent that our financing costs are determined by reference to floating rates, such as LIBOR, SOFR or a Treasury index, the amount of such costs will depend on the level and movement of interest rates. In recent years, interest rates had remained at relatively low levels on a historical basis. However, in 2022, in light of increasing inflation, the U.S. Federal Reserve increased interest rates seven times. The U.S. Federal Reserve has also indicated that it expects continued increases in interest rates in 2023 and 2024. In a period of rising interest rates, our headquartersinterest expense on floating-rate debt would increase, while any additional interest income we earn on our floating-rate investments may be subject to caps and may not compensate for such increase in New York City, where mostinterest expense. Specifically, in a rising interest environment, our interest income on our current portfolio is expected to increase. At the same time, the interest income we earn on our fixed-rate investments would not change, the duration and weighted average life of our Manager’s personnel are located, forfixed-rate investments would increase and the continued operationmarket value of our business. A disaster orfixed-rate

investments would decrease. Similarly, in a disruptionperiod of declining interest rates, our interest income on floating-rate investments would generally decrease, while any decrease in the infrastructure that supportsinterest we are charged on our business, including a disruption involving electronic communicationsfloating-rate debt may be subject to floors and may not compensate for such decrease in interest income, however, rate floors relating to our loan portfolio may offset some of the impact from declining rates. In addition, interest we are charged on our fixed-rate debt would not change. Any such scenario could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The Federal Reserve, in conjunction with the Alternative Reference Rate Committee, a committee convened by the Federal Reserve that includes major market participants, has identified SOFR, a new index calculated by short-term repurchase agreements, backed by Treasury securities, as its preferred alternative rate for LIBOR. There are significant differences between LIBOR and SOFR, such as LIBOR being an unsecured lending rate while SOFR is a secured lending rate, and SOFR is an overnight rate while LIBOR reflects term rates at different maturities. If our headquarters,LIBOR-based borrowings are converted to SOFR, the differences between LIBOR and SOFR, and potential margin adjustments in connection with the transition, could result in higher interest costs for us, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results. Although SOFR is the ARRC’s recommended replacement rate, it is also possible that lenders may instead choose alternative replacement rates that may differ from LIBOR in ways similar to SOFR or in other ways that would result in higher interest costs for us. We cannot predict the effect of the decision not to sustain LIBOR, or the potential transition to SOFR or another alternative reference rate as LIBOR’s replacement.

Our Manager is authorized to follow very broad investment guidelines that provide it with broad discretion over investment, financing, asset allocation and hedging decisions. Our board of directors will periodically review our assets mayinvestment guidelines and our loan and investment portfolio but will not, and will not be subjectrequired to, recourse.

We entered into a license agreement with KKR pursuant to which it granted us a fully paid-up, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use the name “KKR Real Estate Finance Trust Inc.” and the ticker symbol “KREF”. Under this agreement, we have a right to use this name and ticker symbol for so long as our Manager (or another affiliate of KKR) serves as our Manager pursuant to the liability satisfiedmanagement 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’ prior written notice. KKR and its affiliates retain the right to continue using the “KKR” name. We are also unable to preclude KKR and its affiliates from licensing or transferring ownership of the “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” name. Any of these events could disrupt our recognition in the marketplace, damage any goodwill we may have recourse togenerated and otherwise harm our assets generallybusiness.

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.

We currently conduct, and intend to continue to conduct, our operations so that we are not required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. We believe we are not an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act because we do not engage primarily, or hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. In addition, we intend to conduct our operations so that we do not come within the definition of an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act because less than 40% of our total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis will consist of “investment securities” (the “40% test”). Excluded from the term “investment securities” (as that term is defined in the Investment Company Act) are securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries that are themselves not investment companies and are not relying on the exclusion from the definition of investment company set forth in Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. Our interests in wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries that qualify for the exclusion pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C), or Rule 3a-7, each as described below, or another exemption or exclusion under the Investment Company Act other than Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) thereof, do not constitute “investment securities.”

To avoid the need to registermaintain an exclusion from registration as an investment company, the securities issued to us by any wholly ownedwholly-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.basis (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items). We will monitor our holdings to ensure ongoing compliance with this 40% test, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to avoid the need to registermaintain an exclusion from registration 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.

As a consequence of our seeking to avoid the need to registermaintain an exclusion from registration 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 registermaintain an exclusion from registration 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’ 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 registermaintain an exclusion from registration 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, avoidingmaintaining an exclusion from 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.

SEC staff and interpretive guidance provided by the SEC and its staff. Based on such guidance, to qualify for the exclusion pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C), each such subsidiary generally is required to hold at least (i) 55% of its assets in “qualifying” real estate assets and (ii) 80% of its assets in “qualifying” real estate assets and real estate-related assets. “Qualifying” real estate assets for this purpose include senior loans, certain B-Notes and certain mezzanine loans that satisfy various conditions as set forth in SEC staff no-action letters and other guidance, and other assets that the SEC staff in various no-action letters and other guidance has determined are the functional equivalent of senior loans for the purposes of the Investment Company Act. We treat as real estate-related assets B-Notes and mezzanine loans that do not satisfy the conditions set forth in the relevant SEC staff no-action letters and other guidance, and debt and equity securities of companies primarily engaged in real estate businesses. Unless a relevant SEC no action letter or other guidance applies, we expect to treat preferred equity interests as real estate-related assets. The SEC has not published guidance with respect to the treatment of CMBS for purposes of the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion. Unless the SEC or its staff issues guidance with respect to CMBS, we intend to treat CMBS as a real estate-related asset. These no-action positions are based on specific factual situations that may be substantially different from the factual situations we and our subsidiaries may face, and a number of thesethe no-action positions relevant to our business were issued more than twenty years ago. There may be no guidance from the SEC staff that applies directly to our factual situations and as a result we may have to apply SEC staff guidance that relates to other factual situations by analogy. No assurance can be given that the SEC or its staff will concur with our classification of our assets. In addition, the SEC or its staff may, in the future, issue further guidance that may require us to re-classify our assets for purposes of the Investment Company Act, including for purposes of our subsidiaries’ compliance with the exclusion provided in Section 3(c)(5)(C) of, or Rule 3a-7 under, the Investment Company Act. There is no guarantee that we will be able to adjust our assets in the manner required to avoid the need to registermaintain an exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act and 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 morenew specific guidance regarding any of the matters bearing upon the definition of investment company and the exemptions or exclusions 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

There can be no assurance that we and our subsidiaries willwould 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.company.

If we were required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to our capital structure (including our ability to use borrowings)borrowings or corporate leverage, which would have an adverse impact on our investment returns), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the Investment Company Act) and portfolio composition, including disclosure requirements and restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration and other matters. Compliance with the Investment Company Act would, accordingly, limit our ability to make certain investments and require us to significantly restructure our business plan, which could materially adversely affect our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

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-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-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.

Various laws and regulations currently exist that restrict the investment activities of banks and certain other financial institutions but do not apply to us, which we believe creates opportunities for us to participate in certain investments that are not available to these more regulated institutions. However, the current presidential administration has promised that it will seek to deregulateAny deregulation of the financial industry, including by amending the Dodd-Frank Act, which may decrease the restrictions on banks and other financial institutions and allow them to compete with uswould create more competition for investment opportunities that were previously not available to them.the financial industry. For example, in 2018, a bill was signed into law that eased the regulation and oversight of certain banks under the Dodd-Frank Act..Act. See “—Risks“Risks Related to Our Lending and Investment Activities—We operate in a competitive market for lending and investment opportunities, and competition may limit our ability to originate or acquire desirable loans and investments or dispose of assets we target and could also affect the yields of these assets and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.” Efforts by the current administration could have further impacts on our industry if previously enacted laws are amended or if new legislative or regulatory reforms are adopted. In addition, the change in administration has led and will lead to leadership changes at a number of U.S. federal regulatory agencies with oversight over the U.S. financial services industry. This poses uncertainty with respect to such agencies’ policy priorities and may lead to increased regulatory enforcement activity in the financial services industry. Although there is a substantial lack of clarity regarding the likelihood, timing and details of potential changes or reforms by the new administration and U.S. Congress, such changes or reforms may impose additional costs on our current or future investments, require the attention of senior management or result in other limitations on our business or investments. We are unable to predict at this time the effect of any such reforms.

There has been increasing commentary amongst regulators and intergovernmental institutions on the role of nonbank institutions in providing credit and, particularly, so-called “shadow banking,” a term generally taken to refer to credit intermediation involving entities and activities outside the regulated banking system. For example, in August 2013, the Financial Stability Board issued a policy framework for strengthening oversight and regulation of “shadow banking” entities. The report outlined initial steps to define the scope of the shadow banking system and proposed general governing principles for a monitoring and regulatory framework. A number of other regulators, such as the Federal Reserve, and international organizations, such as the International Organization of Securities Commissions, are studying the shadow banking system. At this time, it is too early to assess whether any rules or regulations will be proposed or to what extent any finalized rules or regulations will have on the nonbank lending market. If rules or regulations were to extend to us or our affiliates the regulatory

In the United States, the process established by the Dodd-Frank Act for designation of systemically important nonbank firms has provided a means for ensuring that the perimeter of prudential regulation can be extended as appropriate to cover large shadow banking institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act established the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “FSOC”), which is comprised of representatives of all the major U.S. financial regulators, to act as the financial system’s systemic risk regulator. The FSOC has the authority to review the activities of nonbank financial companies predominantly engaged in financial activities and designate those companies as “systematically important financial institutions” (“SIFIs”) for supervision by the Federal Reserve. Such designation is applicable to companies where material distress or failure could pose risk to the financial stability of the United States. On December 18, 2014, the FSOC released a notice seeking public comment on the potential risks posed by aspects of the asset management industry, including whether asset management products and activities may pose potential risks to the U.S. financial system in the areas of liquidity and redemptions, leverage, operational functions, and resolution, or in other areas. On April 18, 2016, the FSOC released an update on its multi-year review of asset management products and activities and created an interagency working group to assess potential risks associated with certain leveraged funds. On December 4, 2019, the FSOC issued final guidance regarding the FSOC’s procedures for designating nonbank financial companies as SIFIs. This guidance implemented a number of reforms to the FSOC’s prior SIFI designation approach by shifting from an “entity-based” approach to an “activities-based” approach whereby the FSOC will primarily focus on regulating activities that pose systematic risk to the financial stability of the United States, rather than designations of individual firms. Under the guidance, designation of a nonbank financial company as a SIFI would only occur if the FSOC determined that the expected benefits justify the expected costs of the designation. While the impact of this guidance cannot be known at this time, whether any regulation will be implemented or what form it will take, increased regulation of nonbank credit extension could negatively impact our operations, cash flows or financial condition, impose additional costs on us, intensify the regulatory supervision of us or otherwise adversely affect our business.

Government counterparties or agencies may have the discretion to change or increase regulation of a borrower’s operations, or implement laws or regulations affecting a borrower’s operations, separate from any contractual rights it may have. A borrower could also be materially and adversely affected as a result of statutory or regulatory changes or judicial or administrative interpretations of existing laws and regulations that impose more comprehensive or stringent requirements on such company. Governments have considerable discretion in implementing regulations, including, for example, the possible imposition or increase of taxes on income earned by a borrower or gains recognized by us on our investment in such borrower, that could impact a borrower’s business as well as our return on our investment with respect to such borrower. Changes in government rules, regulations and fiscal policies, including increases in property taxes, changes in zoning laws and increasing costs to comply with environmental law could increase operating expenses for our borrowers. Likewise, changes in rent control or rent stabilization laws or other residential landlord/tenant laws could result in lower revenue growth or significant unanticipated expenditures for our borrowers. For example, in 2016, voters in Mountain View, California passed a referendum that limits rent increases on existing tenants (but not on new move-ins) in communities built before 1995. These initiatives and any other future enactments of rent control or rent stabilization laws or other laws regulating multifamily housing may reduce our borrowers’ rental revenues or increase their operating costs. Such laws and regulations may limit our borrowers’ ability to charge market rents, increase rents, evict tenants or recover increases in their operating costs, which may, in turn, impact our return on our investment with respect to such borrowers.

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”), 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’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, reporting systems and procedures, and create or outsource an internal audit function. If we are unable to accomplish these objectives in a timely and effective fashion, our ability to comply with the financial reporting requirements and other rules that apply to reporting companies could be impaired.

As a public company, we are required to maintain internal controls over financial reporting and to report any material weaknesses in such internal controls. In addition, we are required to furnish a report by management on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Once we are no longer an emerging growth company, ourOur independent registered public accounting firm will beis required to formally attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting on an annual basis. The process of designing, implementing and testing the internal controls over financial reporting required to comply with this obligation is time consuming, costly and complicated. If we identify material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting, if we are unable to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner or to assert that our internal controls over financial reporting is effective or if once we are no longer an emerging growth company, our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an opinion as to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and the market price of our common stock could be negatively affected. We could also become subject to investigations by the stock exchange on which our securities are listed, the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources.

Even if we maintain our qualification as a REIT, we may become subject to U.S. federal income taxes and related state and local taxes, and foreign taxes. For example, net income from the sale of properties that are “dealer” properties sold by a REIT (a “prohibited transaction” under the Code) will be subject to a 100% tax. WeOur distributions may not makebe sufficient distributions to avoid excise taxes applicable to REITs. Similarly, if we were to fail an income or asset test (and did not lose our REIT status because such failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect), we would have to pay a penalty tax, which could be material. We also may decide to retain net capital gain we earn from the sale or other disposition of our investments and pay income tax directly on such income. In that event, our stockholders would be treated as if they earned that income and paid the tax on it directly. However, stockholders that are tax-exempt, such as charities or qualified pension plans, would have no benefit from their deemed payment of such tax liability unless they file U.S. federal income tax returns and seek a refund of such tax on such return. We also may be subject to state and local or foreign taxes on our income or property, including franchise, payroll,

mortgage recording and transfer taxes, either directly or at the level of the other companies through which we indirectly own assets. For example, our domestic taxable REIT subsidiaries are subject to full U.S. federal, state, local and foreign corporate-level income taxes. Any taxes we pay directly or indirectly will reduce our cash available for distribution to stockholders.

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

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” 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” 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 implement those hedges through a taxable REIT subsidiary. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities because our taxable REIT subsidiaries would be subject to tax on gains or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear. In addition, losses in our taxable REIT subsidiaries generally will not provide any tax benefit, except for being carried forward against future taxable income in the taxable REIT subsidiaries.

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’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’ power to increase the ownership limit or grant further exemptions in the future.

Under current law, 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.

Our taxable income may substantially exceed our net income as determined based on GAAP, or differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash may occur. For example, we may acquire assets, including debt securities requiring us to accrue OID or recognize market discount income, that generate taxable income in excess of economic

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

We may agree to modify the terms of distressed and other debt instruments that we hold. If the amendments to the outstanding debt are “significant modifications” under the applicable U.S. Treasury regulations, the modified debt may be considered to have been reissued to us in a debt-for-debt taxable exchange with the borrower. In certain circumstances, this deemed reissuance may prevent the modified debt from qualifying as a good REIT asset if the underlying security has declined in value and could cause us to recognize income to the extent the principal amount of the modified debt exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified debt.

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 domay 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 treatment as a real estate asset for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests and, if such a challenge were sustained, 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 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

A REIT’s net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax with no offset for losses. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property, other than foreclosure property, but including mortgage loans, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to this tax if we dispose of, securitize or syndicate loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the loans, if we frequently buy and sell securities in a manner that is treated as dealer activity with respect to such securities for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose to engage in certain sales of assets through a taxable REIT subsidiary and not at the REIT level, and may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions, even though the sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us.

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 assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could assert that we do not own the assets during the term of the related sale and repurchase agreement, in which case we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

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 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’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’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 interestamounts 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’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.

Any such changesrevisions 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 legislationsuch revisions 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 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 our best interest.

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

As of December 31, 2019,2022, KKR and its affiliates beneficially owned shares of our common stock providing them with an aggregate 38%14.5% of the total voting power of our company. Furthermore, until such time as (1) KKR and its affiliates cease to own at least 25% of the outstanding shares of our common stock, (2) KKR REFT Asset Holdings elects to convert the share of our special voting preferred stock into one share of our common stock or (3) beneficial and/or record ownership of the share of

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.

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.

The control share acquisition statute does not apply to (a) shares acquired in a merger, consolidation or share exchange if the corporation is a party to the transaction or (b) acquisitions approved or exempted by the charter or bylaws of the corporation.

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.

The Maryland Unsolicited Takeovers Act (“MUTA”) permits the board of directors of a Maryland corporation with at least three independent directors and a class of stock registered under the Exchange Act, without stockholder approval and notwithstanding any contrary provision in its charter or bylaws, to implement certain takeover defenses, including adopting a classified board, increasing the vote required to remove a director or providing that each vacancy on the board of directors may be filled only by a majority of the remaining directors in office, even if the remaining directors do not constitute a quorum. These provisions could have the effect of limiting or precluding a third party from making an unsolicited acquisition proposal for our company or of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of shares of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then current market price. Our charter contains a provision whereby we have elected to be subject to the provisions of MUTA relating to the filling of vacancies on our board of directors.

In addition, our charter includes certain limitations on the ownership and transfer of our common stock. See “—Risks“Risks Related to Our REIT Status and Certain Other Tax Items—Our charter does not permit any person (including certain entities treated as individuals for this purpose) to own more than 9.8% of any class or series of our outstanding capital stock, and attempts to acquire shares of any class or series of our capital stock in excess of this 9.8% limit would not be effective without a prior exemption from those prohibitions by our board of directors.”

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 and bylaws require us to indemnify our present and former directors and officers 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

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’s or its affiliates’ status as a stockholder or KKR 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 requirement we currently intend to satisfy through quarterly distributions of all or substantially allat least 90% of our net taxable income in such year, subject to certain adjustments. Although we intend to make regular quarterly distributions to holders of our common stock and we currently expect to distribute substantially allat least 90% of our net taxable income to our stockholders on an annual basis, we have not established a minimum distribution payment level and our ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Any distributions we make to our stockholders will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our earnings, financial condition, liquidity, debt covenants, maintenance of our REIT qualification, applicable law and such other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time. We believe that a change in any one of the following factors could adversely affect our results of operations and impair our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders:

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’s investment in our common stock.