EX_99_1-2013.12.31 10K

This section describes material risks affecting Resource Capital Corp's business. As used herein, the terms "we" and "our" refers to Resource Capital Corp. and its subsidiaries. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in Resource Capital Corp.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the "RSO 10-K"). Cross references contained herein refer to sections appearing in the RSO 10-K.

Although economic and market conditions in the United States during 2012 and 2013 improved over those of the previous four years, there are still significant problems in the national and global economic and credit markets, while improved, still are still subject to limitations. Also, while real estate markets in the United States have stabilized and, in some cases, improved, overall they are far from robust, which may cause additional declines in the value of same real estate and real estate related assets, impairment of the ability of some borrowers to repay their obligations and limited liquidity in the markets for real estate and real estate-related assets. Since mid-2007 and through the end of fiscal 2013, economic and credit market conditions have had significant adverse effects on us, causing us to record material impairment charges with respect to investments we hold and significant increases in our provision for loan losses. Moreover, until recently, these conditions have made it difficult and, until 2011, virtually impossible, for us to access new financing to support investment growth. As a result, our net income and net income per share have been volatile. Failure of economic and financial market conditions to continue to improve could adversely affect our ability to achieve our investment objectives, ability to make distributions to our stockholders and the price of our common stock.

In response to economic and market conditions, U.S. and foreign governments and governmental agencies have established or proposed a number of programs designed to improve the financial system and credit markets, and to stimulate economic growth including in the U.S. "quantitative easing" programs by the Federal Reserve. Many governments, including federal, state and local governments in the U.S., are incurring substantial budget deficits and seeking financing in international and national credit markets as well as proposing or enacting austerity programs that seek to reduce government spending, raise taxes, or both. Many credit providers, including banks, may need to obtain additional capital before they will be able to expand their lending activities. We are unable to evaluate the effects these programs and conditions will have upon our financial condition, income, or ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We depend upon the availability of adequate debt and equity capital for growth in our operations. Although we have been able to raise both debt and equity capital during 2012 and 2013, if current economic conditions were to deteriorate, our ability to access debt or equity capital on acceptable terms, or at all, could be limited which could limit our profitability, our ability to make distributions and the market price of our common stock. In addition, as a REIT, we must distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain, to our stockholders and are therefore not able to retain significant amounts of our earnings for new investments. While we may, through our taxable REIT subsidiaries, or TRSs, retain earnings as new capital, we are subject to REIT qualification requirements which limit the value of TRS stock and securities relative to the other assets owned by a REIT.

Financing that we may obtain, and financing we have obtained through CDO and CLOs, typically requires, or will require, us to maintain a specified ratio of the amount of the financing to the value of the assets financed. A decrease in the value of these assets may lead to margin calls or calls for the pledge of additional assets which we will have to satisfy. We may not have sufficient funds or unpledged assets to satisfy any such calls, which could result in our loss of distributions from and interests in affected CDO and CLOs, which would reduce our assets, income and ability to make distributions.

We are exposed to loss if lenders under our repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities, or other short-term lenders liquidate the assets securing those facilities. Moreover, assets acquired by us pursuant to our repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities or other short-term debt may not be suitable for refinancing through long-term arrangements which may require us to liquidate some or all of the related assets.

We have entered into repurchase agreements and warehouse facilities and expect in the future to seek additional debt to finance our growth. Lenders typically have the right to liquidate assets securing or acquired under these facilities upon the occurrence of specified events, such as an event of default. We are exposed to loss if the proceeds received by the lender upon liquidation are insufficient to satisfy our obligation to the lender. We are also subject to the risk that the assets subject to such repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities or other debt might not be suitable for long-term refinancing or securitization transactions. If we are unable to refinance these assets on a long-term basis, or if long-term financing is more expensive than we anticipated at the time of our acquisition of the assets to be financed, we might be required to liquidate assets.

When engaged in repurchase transactions, we generally sell assets to the transaction counterparty and receive cash from the counterparty. The counterparty must resell the assets back to us at the end of the term of the transaction. Because the cash we receive from the counterparty when we initially sell the assets is less than the market value of those assets, if the counterparty defaults on its obligation to resell the assets back to us we will incur a loss on the transaction. We will also incur a loss if the value of the underlying assets has declined as of the end of the transaction term, as we will have to repurchase the assets for their initial value but would receive assets worth less than that amount. If we default upon our obligation to repurchase the assets, the counterparty may liquidate them at a loss, which we are obligated to repay. Any losses we incur on our repurchase transactions would reduce our earnings, and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We have entered into and intend to enter into, sale and repurchase agreements under which we nominally sell certain REIT qualifying assets to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase the sold assets. We believe that we will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as the owner of the assets that are the subject of any such agreement notwithstanding that we may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, could assert that we did not own the assets during the term of the sale and repurchase agreement, in which case our ability to qualify as a REIT would be adversely affected. If any of our REIT qualifying assets are subject to a repurchase agreement and are sold by the counterparty in connection with a margin call, the loss of those assets could impair our ability to qualify as a REIT. Accordingly, unlike other REITs, we may be subject to additional risk regarding our ability to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT.

Historically, we have financed most of our investments through CDOs (including CLOs) in which we retained the equity interest. Depending on market conditions, credit availability, and resolution of current credit market conditions, we may seek to use CDOs to finance our investments in the future. The equity interests of a CDO are subordinate in right of payment to all other securities issued by the CDO. The equity is usually entitled to all of the income generated by the CDO after the CDO pays all of the interest due on the debt securities and its other expenses. However, there will be little or no income available to the CDO equity if there are excessive defaults by the issuers of the underlying collateral which would significantly reduce the value of that interest. Reductions in the value of the equity interests we have in a CDO, if we determine that they are other than temporary, will reduce our earnings. In addition, the equity securities of CDOs are generally illiquid, and because they represent a leveraged investment in the CDO's assets, the value of the equity securities will generally have greater fluctuations than the value of the underlying collateral.

Our CDOs generally provide that the principal amount of their assets must exceed the principal balance of the related securities issued by them by a certain amount, commonly referred to as “over-collateralization.” The CDO terms provide that, if delinquencies and/or losses exceed specified levels, based on the analysis by the rating agencies (or any financial guaranty insurer) of the characteristics of the assets collateralizing the securities issued by the CDO issuer, the required level of over-collateralization may be increased or may be prevented from decreasing as would otherwise be permitted if losses or delinquencies did not exceed those levels. In addition, a failure by a CDO to satisfy an over-collateralization test typically results in accelerated distributions to the holders of the senior debt securities issued by the CDO entity, resulting in reduction or elimination of distributions to more junior securities until the over-collateralization requirements have been met or the senior debt securities have been paid in full.

Our equity holdings and, when we acquire debt interests in CDOs, our debt interests, if any, generally are subordinate in right of payment to the other classes of debt securities issued by the CDO entity. Accordingly, if overcollateralization tests are not met, distributions on the subordinated debt and equity we hold in these CDOs will cease, resulting in a substantial reduction in our cash flow. Other tests (based on delinquency levels, interest coverage or other criteria) may restrict our ability to receive cash distributions from assets collateralizing the securities issued by the CDO entity. Although at December 31, 2013, all of our CDOs met their performance tests, we cannot assure you that our CDOs will satisfy the performance tests in the future. For information concerning compliance by our CDOs with their over-collateralization tests, see “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation - Summary of CDO and CLO Performance Statistics.”

If any of our CDOs fails to meet collateralization or other tests relevant to the most senior debt issued and outstanding by the CDO issuer, an event of default may occur under that CDO. If that occurs, our Manager's ability to manage the CDO likely would be terminated and our ability to attempt to cure any defaults in the CDO would be limited, which would increase the likelihood of a reduction or elimination of cash flow and returns to us in those CDOs for an indefinite time.

Any debt securities we may issue in the future will likely be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Holders of senior securities may be granted the right to hold a perfected security interest in certain of our assets, to accelerate payments due under the indenture if we breach financial or other covenants, to restrict distributions, and to require us to obtain their approval to sell assets. These covenants could limit our ability to operate our business or manage our assets effectively. Additionally, any convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock. We, and indirectly our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities.

Historically, we have financed a significant portion of our assets through the use of CDOs and CLOs, and have accumulated assets for these financings through short-term credit facilities, typically repurchase agreements or warehouse facilities. Depending upon market condition, and, consequently, the extent to which such financing is available to us, we expect to seek similar financing arrangements in the future. These arrangements could expose us to a number of credit risks, including the following:

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to losses from adverse changes in interest rates. Our interest rate hedging activity varies in scope depending upon market conditions relating to, among other factors, the level and volatility of interest rates and the type of assets we hold. There are practical limitations on our ability to insulate our portfolio from all of the negative consequences associated with changes in short-term interest rates, including:

We have adopted written policies and procedures governing our hedging activities. Under these policies and procedures, our board of directors is responsible for approving the types of hedging instruments we may use, absolute limits on the notional amount and term of a hedging instrument and parameters for the credit-worthiness of hedge counterparties. The senior managers responsible for each of our targeted asset classes are responsible for executing transactions using the services of independent interest rate risk management consultants, documenting the transactions, monitoring the valuation and effectiveness of the hedges, and providing reports concerning our hedging activities and the valuation and effectiveness of our hedges to the audit committee of our board of directors no less often than quarterly. Our guidelines also require us to engage one or more experienced third-party advisors to provide us with assistance in the identification of interest rate risks, the analysis, selection and timing of risk protection strategies, the administration and negotiation of hedge documentation, settlement or disposition of hedges, compliance with hedge accounting requirements and measurement of hedge effectiveness and valuation.

Hedging against a decline in the values of our portfolio positions does not eliminate the possibility of fluctuations in the values of the positions or prevent losses if the values of the positions decline. Hedging transactions may also limit the opportunity for gain if the values of the portfolio positions should increase. Moreover, we may not be able to hedge against an interest rate fluctuation that is generally anticipated by the market.

The success of our hedging transactions will depend on the Manager's ability to correctly predict movements of interest rates. Therefore, unanticipated changes in interest rates may result in poorer overall investment performance than if we had not engaged in any such hedging transactions. In addition, the degree of correlation between price movements of the instruments used in a hedging strategy and price movements in the portfolio positions being hedged may vary. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, we may not seek to establish a perfect correlation between such hedging instruments and the portfolio holdings being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, part of our investment strategy involves entering into puts and calls on securities or indices of securities, interest rate swaps, caps and collars, including options and forward contracts, and interest rate lock agreements, principally Treasury lock agreements, to seek to hedge against mismatches between the cash flows from our assets and the interest payments on our liabilities. Currently, many hedging instruments are not traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house, or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, there may be no applicable requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and positions. Furthermore, the enforceability of agreements underlying derivative transactions may depend on compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. The business failure of a counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in a default. Default by a party with whom we entered into a hedging transaction may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to cover our resale commitments, if any, at the then current market price. Although generally we seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging positions, we may not always be able to dispose of or close out a hedging position without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to enter into an offsetting contract in order to cover our risk. A liquid secondary market may not exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and we may have to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in losses.

We have entered and may in the future enter into hedging instruments that require us to fund cash payments under certain circumstances, for example, upon the early termination of the instrument caused by an event of default or other early termination event, or the decision by a counterparty to request additional collateral for margin it is contractually owed under the terms of the instrument. The amount due would be equal to the unrealized loss of the open positions with the counterparty and could also include other fees and charges. These liabilities will be reflected in our consolidated balance sheet, and our ability to fund these obligations will depend on the liquidity of our assets and access to capital at the time, and the need to fund these obligations could adversely impact our financial condition.

As of December 31, 2013, approximately 95% of our outstanding hedges, with a notional amount of $122.5 million, were with Credit Suisse International, or CS. Were CS to default in its obligations under these hedging arrangements, we would lose the hedge protection for which we had contracted which, depending upon market conditions, could result in significant losses to us. We cannot assure you that we could replace the defaulted hedges or that the terms of any replacement hedges we could obtain would be on similar terms, or as to the cost to us of obtaining replacement hedges.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and our exclusion from regulation under the Investment Company Act, we may change our investment strategy, including the percentage of assets that may be invested in each class, or in the case of securities, in a single issuer, at any time without the consent of our stockholders, which could result in our making investments that are different from, and possibly riskier than, the investments described in this report. A change in our investment strategy may increase our exposure to interest rate and real estate market fluctuations, all of which may reduce the market price of our common stock and impair our ability to make distributions to stockholders. Furthermore, a change in our asset allocation could result in our making investments in asset categories different from those described in this report.

We utilize AFFO as a measure of our operating performance and believe that it is useful to analysts, investors and other parties in the evaluations of REITS. We utilize AFFO as a measure of our operating performance, and believe it is also useful to investors because it facilitates an understanding of our operating performance after adjustment for certain non-cash expenses, such as real estate depreciation, share-based compensation and non-cash impairment losses resulting from fair value adjustments on financial instruments, non-cash provision for loan losses, non-economic income related to variable interest entities, or VIEs, accounting, equity-method investments gains and losses, straight-line rental effects, amortization of various deferred items and intangible assets, gains on debt extinguishment, REIT tax planning adjustments considered non-recurring by management and capital expenditures that are related to our real estate owned. Additionally, we believe that AFFO serves as a good measure of our operating performance because it facilitates evaluation of our company without the effects of selected items required in accordance with GAAP that may not necessarily be indicative of current operating performance and that may not accurately compare our operating performance between periods. Nonetheless, in certain instances, AFFO may not necessarily be reflective of our actual economic results.

More generally, any of these events could cause consumer confidence and spending to decrease or result in increased volatility in the United States and worldwide financial markets and economy. Adverse economic conditions could harm the value of some or all of the investments in our portfolio or the securities markets in general which could harm our operating results and revenues and may result in volatile values for assets in our portfolio.

If we determine to sell one or more of our investments, we may encounter difficulties in finding buyers in a timely manner as real estate debt and other of our investments generally cannot be disposed of quickly, especially when market conditions are poor. Moreover, some of these assets may be subject to legal and other restrictions on resale. 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 have previously recorded our investments. In addition, we may face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate an investment in a business entity to the extent that we, the Manager or Resource America has or could be attributed with material non-public information regarding such business entity. These factors may limit our ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions and may also limit our ability to use portfolio sales as a source of liquidity, which could limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders or repay debt.

If any of the assets that we originate or acquire and sell or securitize do not comply with representations and warranties that we make about them, we may have to purchase these assets from the CDO or securitization vehicle, or replace them. In addition, we may have to indemnify purchasers for losses or expenses incurred as a result of a breach of a representation or warranty. Any significant repurchases or indemnification payments could materially reduce our liquidity, earnings and ability to make distributions.

In the course of our business, we have taken title to, and expect we will in the future take title to, real estate through foreclosure on collateral underlying real estate debt investments. When we do take title to any property, we could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to it. In such a circumstance, we may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation, and clean-up costs they incur as a result of environmental contamination, or may have to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances, or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial and could reduce our income and ability to make distributions.

PCA primarily operates in the residential mortgage markets. The contraction of the U.S. housing market and overall economy, the tightening of credit restrictions, the availability of warehouse line of credit borrowings and government regulations may negatively impact the future operations of PCA. PCA is subject to various lending warehouse line of credit agreements that expire at various times. PCA is dependent upon the renewal of the warehouse lines of credit and continued access to permanent investors to continue to originate and sell residential mortgage loans at its current loan volume. Additionally, because of underwriting and other issues, permanent investors have been more aggressive pursuing indemnification or repurchase from loan originators, which may have a negative impact on PCA and its related cash needs.

We maintain an allowance for loan losses to provide for loan defaults and non-performance by borrowers of their obligations. Our allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual or estimated future loan losses and future provisions for loan losses could materially reduce our income. We base our allowance for loan losses on prior experience, as well as an evaluation of risks in the current portfolio. However, losses may exceed our current estimates. The amount of future losses is susceptible to changes in economic, operating and other conditions that may be beyond our control, including changes in interest rates, changes in borrowers' creditworthiness and the value of collateral securing loans. Additionally, if we seek to expand our loan portfolios, we may need to make additional provisions for loan losses to ensure that the allowance remains at levels deemed appropriate by our management for the size and quality of our portfolios. While we believe that our allowance for loan and lease losses is adequate to cover our anticipated losses, we cannot assure you that it will not increase in the future. Any increase in our allowance for loan losses will reduce our income and, if sufficiently large, could cause us to incur loss.

Before investing in any asset, we will assess the strength and skills of the asset's management and operations, the value of the asset and, for debt investments, the value of any collateral securing the debt, the ability of the asset or underlying collateral to service the debt and other factors that we believe are material to the performance of the investment. In making the assessment and otherwise conducting customary due diligence, we will rely on the resources available to us and, in some cases, an investigation by third parties. This process is particularly important and subjective with respect to investments in newly-organized entities because there may be little or no information publicly available about the entities or, with respect to debt securities, any underlying collateral. Our due diligence processes, however, may not uncover all facts that may be relevant to an investment decision.

We classify a substantial portion of our assets for accounting purposes as “available-for-sale.” As a result, reductions in the market values of those assets are directly charged or credited to accumulated other comprehensive loss and could reduce our stockholders' equity. A decline in these values will reduce the book value of our assets. Moreover, if the decline in value of an available-for-sale asset is other than temporary, we are required by GAAP to record the decline as an asset impairment which will reduce our earnings.

A decline in the market value of our assets may also adversely affect us in instances where we have borrowed money based on the market value of those assets. If the market value of those assets declines, the lender may require us to post additional collateral to support the loan. If we were unable to post the additional collateral, we would have to repay some portion or all of the loan, which may require us to sell assets, which could potentially be under adverse market conditions. As a result, our earnings would be reduced or we could sustain losses, and cash available to make distributions could be reduced or eliminated.

A significant risk associated with our investment in commercial real estate-related loans, CMBS and other debt instruments is the risk that either or both of long-term and short-term interest rates increase significantly. If long-term rates increase, the market value of our assets would decline. Even if assets underlying investments we may own in the future are guaranteed by one or more persons, including government or government-sponsored agencies, those guarantees do not protect against declines in market value of the related assets caused by interest rate changes. At the same time, with respect to assets that are not match-funded or that have been acquired with variable rate or short-term financing, an increase in short-term interest rates would increase our interest expense, reducing our net interest spread or possibly result in negative cash flow from those assets. This could result in reduced profitability and distributions or losses.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and exclusion from regulation under the Investment Company Act, we invest in mezzanine debt and expect to invest in mezzanine or other subordinated tranches of CMBS, bank loans and other ABS. These types of investments carry a higher degree of risk of loss than senior secured debt investments such as our whole loan investments because, in the event of default and foreclosure, holders of senior liens will be paid in full before mezzanine investors. Depending on the value of the underlying collateral at the time of foreclosure, there may not be sufficient assets to pay all or any part of amounts owed to mezzanine investors. Moreover, our mezzanine and other subordinate debt investments may have higher loan-to-value ratios than conventional senior lien financing, resulting in less equity in the collateral and increasing the risk of loss of principal. If a borrower defaults or declares bankruptcy, we may be subject to agreements restricting or eliminating our rights as a creditor, including rights to call a default, foreclose on collateral, accelerate maturity or control decisions made in bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, the prices of lower credit quality securities are generally less sensitive to interest rate changes than more highly rated investments, but more sensitive to economic downturns or individual issuer developments because the ability of obligors of instruments underlying the securities to make principal and interest payments may be impaired. In such event, existing credit support relating to the securities' structure may not be sufficient to protect us against loss of our principal. For additional risks regarding real estate-related loans, see "Risks Related to Real Estate Investments."

We historically have invested in small- and middle-ticket lease receivables. As a result of our investment in LCC, (including the contribution of all of our lease receivables to it), we currently do not directly invest in lease receivables. However, in connection with our investment in LCC, we and Resource America agreed that, to the extent that the value of the equity on the balance sheet of LEAF Receivables Funding 3, an entity whose securities we contributed to LCC in exchange for a portion of our investment, is less than $18.7 million as of the final testing date (a date within 90 days of December 31, 2013), we and Resource America will be jointly and severally obligated to contribute cash to LCC to make up the deficit. The LEAF Receivables Funding 3 equity as of December 31, 2013 was in excess of the commitment. Also in connection with our investment in LCC, we are required under GAAP to include our proportionate share of the loss (income) of LCC in our income. Since LCC has incurred losses of $3.4 million through December 31, 2013, the effect of our investment in LCC has been to reduce our reported net income. We cannot predict whether or when LCC will be become profitable.

On occasion, we have made private equity investments. Typically, these investments are subordinate to debt financing and are not secured. Should the issuer default on our investment, we would only be able to proceed against the entity that issued the private equity in accordance with the terms of the security, and not any property owned by the entity. In the event of bankruptcy or foreclosure, we would only be able to recoup our investment after any lenders to the entity are paid. As a result, we may not recover some or all of our investment, which could reduce our income or result in losses. Moreover, depending upon the existence of a market for the issuer's securities, the length of time we have held the investment and any rights we may have to require registration under the Securities Act, these investments may be highly illiquid so that we may not be able to sell these investments at times we would like to do so or at prices that reflect our cost or the value of the investment on our financial statements.

We currently hold, and expect that we will hold in the future, portfolio investments that are not publicly traded. The fair value of securities and other investments that are not publicly traded may not be readily determinable. We value these investments quarterly at fair value as determined under policies approved by our board of directors. Because such valuations are inherently uncertain, may fluctuate over short periods of time and may be based on estimates, our determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have obtained if a ready market for them existed. The value of our common stock will likely decrease if our determinations regarding the fair value of these investments are materially higher than the values that we ultimately realize upon their disposal.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and exclusion from regulation under the Investment Company Act, we invest in bank loans and ABS. Our bank loan investments or our ABS investments, which are principally backed by small business and bank loans, may not be secured by mortgages or other liens on assets or may involve higher loan-to-value ratios than our real estate-related investments. Our bank loan investments, and our ABS backed by loans, involve loans with a par amount of $580.0 million at December 31, 2013 that have an interest-only payment schedule or a schedule that does not fully amortize principal over the term of the loan, which will make repayment of loans depend upon the borrowers' liquidity or ability to refinance the loans at maturity. Numerous factors affect a borrower's ability to repay or refinance loans at maturity, including national and local economic conditions, a downturn in a borrower's industry, loss of one or more principal customers and conditions in the credit markets. A deterioration in a company's financial condition or prospects may be accompanied by deterioration in the collateral for the bank loan or any ABS backed by such company's loans.

There are numerous REITs and other financial investors seeking to invest in the types of assets we target. This competition may cause us to forgo particular investments or to accept economic terms or structural features that we would not otherwise have accepted, and it may cause us to seek investments outside of our currently targeted areas. Competition for investment assets may slow our growth or limit our profitability and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Therefore, we may not be able to exercise control over the loan or investment. Such financial assets may involve risks not present in investments where senior 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 creditors or servicers whose interests may not be aligned with ours. A third party partner or co-venturer may have financial difficulties resulting in a negative impact on such asset, may have economic or business interest or goals which are inconsistent with ours, or may be in a position to take action contrary to our investment objectives. In addition, we may, in certain circumstances, be liable for the actions of our third-party partners or co-venturers.

Apart from 83 persons employed by PCA, our newly-acquired residential mortgage subsidiary, we have no employees. Our officers, portfolio managers, administrative personnel and support personnel are employees of Resource America. We have no separate facilities and, except for PCA's operations, completely rely on the Manager and, because the Manager has no direct employees, Resource America, which has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and investment strategies. If our management agreement terminates, we may be unable to find a suitable replacement for the Manager. Moreover, we believe that our success depends to a significant extent upon the experience of the portfolio managers and officers of the Manager and Resource America who provide services to us, whose continued service is not guaranteed. The departure of any such persons could harm our investment performance.

The Manager is entitled to receive a monthly base management fee equal to 1/12 of our equity, as defined in the management agreement, times 1.50%, regardless of the performance of our portfolio. The Manager's entitlement to substantial non-performance based compensation might reduce its incentive to devote its time and effort to seeking profitable opportunities for our portfolio. This in turn could hurt our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

In addition to its base management fee, the Manager will receive incentive compensation, payable quarterly, equal to 25% of the amount by which our adjusted operating earnings, as defined in the management agreement, exceed the weighted average prices for our common stock in all of our offerings multiplied by the greater of 2.00% or 0.50% plus one-fourth of the average 10-year treasury rate for such quarter, multiplied by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the quarter. In evaluating investments and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn incentive compensation based on net income may lead the Manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of net income at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, in order to achieve higher incentive compensation. Investments with higher yields generally have higher risk of loss than investments with lower yields.

The Manager is authorized to follow very broad investment guidelines. While our directors periodically review our investment guidelines and our investment portfolio, they do not review all of our proposed investments. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, the directors may rely primarily on information provided to them by the Manager. Furthermore, the Manager may use complex strategies, and transactions entered into by the Manager may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by the directors. The Manager has great latitude within the broad investment guidelines in determining the types of investments it makes for us. Poor investment decisions could impair our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

At the time the management agreement was negotiated, our officers and two of our directors, Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, were also officers or directors of the Manager or Resource America. As a consequence, our management agreement was not the result of arm's-length negotiations and its terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third-party.

Termination of our management agreement without cause is difficult and could be costly. We may terminate the management agreement without cause only annually upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors or by a vote of the holders of at least a majority of our outstanding common stock, based upon unsatisfactory performance by the Manager that is materially detrimental to us or a determination that the management fee payable to the Manager is not fair. Moreover, with respect to a determination that the management fee is not fair, the Manager may prevent termination by accepting a mutually acceptable reduction of management fees. We must give not less than 180 days' prior notice of any termination. Upon any termination without cause, the Manager will be paid a termination fee equal to four times the sum of the average annual base management fee and the average annual incentive compensation earned by it during the two 12-month periods immediately preceding the date of termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter before the date of termination.

Our management agreement does not prohibit the Manager or Resource America from investing in or managing entities that invest in asset classes that are the same as or similar to our targeted asset classes, except that they may not raise funds for, sponsor or advise any new publicly-traded REIT that invests primarily in mortgage-backed securities, or MBS, in the United States. The Manager's policies regarding resolution of conflicts of interest may be varied by it if economic, market, regulatory or other conditions make their application economically inefficient or otherwise impractical. Moreover, our officers, other than our Chief Financial Officer and several accounting professionals on his staff, and the officers, directors and employees of Resource America who provide services to us are not required to work full time on our affairs, and devote significant time to the affairs of Resource America. As a result, there may be significant conflicts between us, on the one hand, and the Manager and Resource America on the other, regarding allocation of the Manager's and Resource America's resources to the management of our investment portfolio.

We have established procedures and policies regarding review, approval and ratification of transactions which may give rise to a conflict of interest between us and persons affiliated or associated with the Manager. In the ordinary course of our business, we have ongoing relationships and have engaged in transactions with entities affiliated or associated with the Manager. Our procedures may not be sufficient to address any conflicts of interest that arise.

Our Manager does not assume any responsibility under the management agreement other than to render the services called for under it, and will not be responsible for any action of our board of directors in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. Resource America, the Manager, their directors, managers, officers, employees and affiliates will not be liable to us, any subsidiary of ours, our directors, our stockholders or any subsidiary's stockholders for acts performed in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement, except by reason of acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of their duties under the management agreement. We have agreed to indemnify the parties for all damages and claims arising from acts not constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of duties, performed in good faith in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement.

Commercial mortgage loans are secured by, and mezzanine loans depend on, the performance of the underlying property and 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 properties. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by or dependent upon an income-producing property typically depends 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:

We risk loss of principal on defaulted mortgage loans we hold to the extent of any deficiency between the value we can realize from the sale of the collateral securing the loan upon foreclosure, and the loan's principal and accrued interest. Moreover, foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process which could reduce the net amount we can realize on the foreclosed mortgage loan. In a bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy as determined by the bankruptcy court, and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law.

We may have material geographic concentrations related to our direct or indirect investments in real estate loans and properties. We also may have material concentrations in the property types and industry sectors that are in our loan portfolio. Where we have any kind of concentration risk in our investments, we may be affected by sector-specific economic or other problems that are not reflected in the national economy generally or in more diverse portfolios. An adverse development in that area of concentration could reduce the value of our investment and our return on that investment and, if the concentration affects a material amount of our investments, impair our ability to execute our investment strategies successfully, reduce our earnings and reduce our ability to make distributions.

Historically, we have invested in B notes. A B note is a loan typically secured by a first mortgage on a single large commercial property or group of related properties and subordinated to a senior note secured by the same first mortgage on the same collateral. As a result, if a borrower defaults, there may not be sufficient funds remaining for B note owners after payment to the senior note owners. Since each transaction is privately negotiated, B notes can vary in their structural characteristics and risks. For example, the rights of holders of B notes to control the process following a borrower default may be limited in certain investments. We currently own one B note, with a book value of $16.1 million, and do not expect that we will make further B note investments during 2014. However, depending upon market and economic conditions, we could resume making B note investments at any time. B notes are less liquid than other forms of commercial real estate debt investments, such as CMBS, and, as a result, we may be able to dispose of underperforming or non-performing B note investments only at a significant discount to book value.

Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act. Maryland law provides that “control shares” of a corporation acquired in a “control share acquisition” will have no voting rights except to the extent approved by a vote of two-thirds of the votes eligible to be cast on the matter under the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act. The act defines “control shares” as voting shares of stock that, if aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquirer or in respect of which the acquirer is able to exercise or direct the exercise of voting power (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy), would entitle the acquirer to exercise voting power in electing directors within one of the following ranges of voting power: one-tenth or more but less than one-third, one-third or more but less than a majority, or a majority or more of all voting power. A “control share acquisition” means the acquisition of control shares, subject to specific exceptions.

If voting rights or control shares acquired in a control share acquisition are not approved at a stockholders' meeting or if the acquiring person does not deliver an acquiring person statement as required by the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act then, subject to specific conditions and limitations, the issuer may redeem any or all of the control shares for fair value. If voting rights of such control shares are approved at a stockholders' meeting and the acquirer becomes entitled to vote a majority of the shares entitled to vote, all other stockholders may exercise appraisal rights.

Business combinations. Under Maryland law, “business combinations” between a Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder or an affiliate of an interested stockholder are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. These business combinations include a merger, consolidation, share exchange or, in circumstances specified in the statute, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities. An interested stockholder is defined as:

A person is not an interested stockholder under the statute if the board of directors approved in advance the transaction by which such person otherwise would have become an interested stockholder. However, in approving a transaction, the board of directors may provide that its approval is subject to compliance, at or after the time of approval, with any terms and conditions determined by the board.

In addition, our charter authorizes us to indemnify our present and former directors and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Our bylaws require us to indemnify each present or former director or officer, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, in the defense of any proceeding to which he or she is made, or threatened to be made, a party by reason of his or her service to us. In addition, we may be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers.

The obligation of the Manager under the management agreement is to render its services in good faith. It will not be responsible for any action taken by our board of directors or investment committee in following or declining to follow its advice and recommendations. Furthermore, as discussed above under “− Risks Related to Our Manager,” it will be difficult and costly for us to terminate the management agreement without cause. In addition, we will indemnify the Manager, Resource America and their officers and affiliates for any actions taken by them in good faith.

We expect to make quarterly distributions to our stockholders in amounts such that we distribute all or substantially all of our taxable income in each year, subject to certain adjustments. We have not established a minimum distribution payment level, and our ability to make distributions may be impaired by the risk factors described in this report. All distributions will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our earnings, our financial condition, maintenance of our REIT qualification and other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time. We may not be able to make distributions in the future. In addition, some of our distributions may include a return of capital. To the extent that we decide to make distributions in excess of our current and accumulated taxable earnings and profits, such distributions would generally be considered a return of capital for federal income tax purposes. A return of capital is not taxable, but it has the effect of reducing the holder's tax basis in its investment. Although we currently do not expect that we will do so, we have in the past and may in the future also use proceeds from any offering of our securities that we have not invested or borrowed funds to make distributions. If we use uninvested offering proceeds to pay distributions in the future, we will have less funds available for investment and, as a result, our earnings and cash available for distribution would be less than we might otherwise have realized had such funds been invested. Similarly, if we borrow to fund distributions, our future interest costs would increase, thereby reducing our future earnings and cash available for distribution from what they otherwise would have been.

We rely on an exclusion from registration as an investment company afforded by Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act. To qualify for this exclusion, we do not engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading securities and we do not own “investment securities” with a value that exceeds 40% of the value of our total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. We may not be able to maintain such a mix of assets in the future, and attempts to maintain such an asset mix may impair our ability to pursue otherwise attractive investments. In addition, these rules are subject to change and such changes may have an adverse impact on us. We may need to avail ourselves of alternative exclusions and exemptions which may require a change in the organizational structure of our business.

Furthermore, as it relates to our investment in our real estate subsidiary, RCC Real Estate, we rely on an exclusion from registration as an investment company afforded by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act. Given the material size of RCC Real Estate relative to our 3(a)(1)(C) exclusion, were RCC Real Estate to be deemed to be an investment company (other than by application of the Section 3(c)(1) exemption for closely held companies and the Section 3(c)(7) exemption for companies owned by “qualified purchasers”), we would not qualify for our 3(a)(1)(C) exclusion. Under the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion, RCC Real Estate is required to maintain, on the basis of positions taken by the SEC staff in interpretive and no-action letters, a minimum of 55% of the value of the total assets of its portfolio in “mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate,” which we refer to as Qualifying Interests, and a minimum of 80% in Qualifying Interests and real estate-related assets, with the remainder permitted to be miscellaneous assets. Because registration as an investment company would significantly affect RCC Real Estate's ability to engage in certain transactions or to organize itself in the manner it is currently organized, we intend to maintain its qualification for this exclusion from registration.

We treat our investments in CMBS, B Notes and mezzanine loans as Qualifying Interests for purposes of determining our eligibility for the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(5) to the extent such treatment is consistent with guidance provided by the SEC or its staff. In the absence of specific guidance or guidance that otherwise supports the treatment of these investments as Qualifying Interests, we will treat them, for purposes of determining our eligibility for the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C), as real estate-related assets or miscellaneous assets, as appropriate.

The SEC staff has commenced an advance notice rulemaking initiative, indicating that it is reconsidering its interpretive policy under Section 3(c)(5)(C) and whether to propose rules to define the basis for the exclusion. We cannot predict the outcome or timing of this reconsideration or potential rulemaking initiative and its impact on our ability to rely on the exclusion.

If RCC Real Estate's portfolio does not comply with the requirements of the exclusion we rely upon, it could be forced to alter its portfolio by selling or otherwise disposing of a substantial portion of the assets that are not Qualifying Interests or by acquiring a significant position in assets that are Qualifying Interests. Altering its portfolio in this manner may have an adverse effect on its investments if it is forced to dispose of or acquire assets in an unfavorable market, and may adversely affect our stock price.

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.

If the market value or income potential of our real estate-related investments declines as a result of economic conditions, increased interest rates, prepayment rates or other factors, we may need to increase our real estate-related investments and income and/or liquidate our non-qualifying assets in order to maintain our REIT qualification or exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act. If the decline in real estate asset values and/or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish. This difficulty may be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of many of our non-real estate assets. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent REIT qualification and Investment Company Act considerations.

To qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy various tests regarding the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our common stock. In order to meet these tests, we may be required to forgo investments we might otherwise make. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our investment performance.

In particular, at least 75% of our assets at the end of each calendar quarter must consist of real estate assets, government securities, cash and cash items. For this purpose, “real estate assets” generally include interests in real property, such as land, buildings, leasehold interests in real property, stock of other entities that qualify as REITs, interests in mortgage loans secured by real property, investments in stock or debt instruments during the one-year period following the receipt of new capital and regular or residual interests in a real estate mortgage investment conduit, or REMIC. In addition, the amount of securities of a single issuer, other than a TRS, that we hold must generally not exceed either 5% of the value of our gross assets or 10% of the vote or value of such issuer's outstanding securities.

Certain of the assets that we hold or intend to hold, including interests in CDOs or corporate leveraged loans, are not qualified and will not be qualified real estate assets for purposes of the REIT asset tests. ABS-RMBS and CMBS securities should generally qualify as real estate assets. However, to the extent that we own non-REMIC collateralized mortgage obligations or other debt instruments secured by mortgage loans (rather than by real property) or secured by non-real estate assets, or debt securities that are not secured by mortgages on real property, those securities are likely not qualifying real estate assets for purposes of the REIT asset test, and will not produce qualifying real estate income. Further, whether securities held by warehouse lenders or financed using repurchase agreements are treated as qualifying assets or as generating qualifying real estate income for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests depends on the terms of the warehouse or repurchase financing arrangement.

We generally will be treated as the owner of any assets that collateralize CDO transactions to the extent that we retain all of the equity of the securitization vehicle and do not make an election to treat such securitization vehicle as a TRS, as described in further detail below. It may be possible to reduce the impact of the REIT asset and gross income requirements by holding certain assets through our TRSs, subject to certain limitations as described below.

Our qualification as a REIT and exemption from U.S. federal income tax with respect to certain assets may depend on the accuracy of legal opinions or advice rendered or given or statements by the issuers of securities in which we invest, and the inaccuracy of any such opinions, advice or statements may adversely affect our REIT qualification and result in significant corporate level tax.

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

If we realize excess inclusion income and allocate it to stockholders, this income cannot be offset by net operating losses of the stockholders. If the stockholder is a tax-exempt entity, then this income would be fully taxable as unrelated business taxable income under Section 512 of the Internal Revenue Code. If the stockholder is a foreign person, it would be subject to federal income tax withholding on this income without reduction or exemption pursuant to any otherwise applicable income tax treaty.

Excess inclusion income could result if we hold a residual interest in a REMIC. Excess inclusion income also could be generated if we issue debt obligations, such as certain CDOs, with two or more maturities and the terms of the payments on these obligations bore a relationship to the payments that we received on our mortgage related securities securing those debt obligations, i.e., if we were to own an interest in a taxable mortgage pool. While we do not expect to acquire significant amounts of residual interests in REMICs, we do own residual interests in taxable mortgage pools, which means that we will likely generate significant amounts of excess inclusion income.

If we realize excess inclusion income, we will be taxed at the highest corporate income tax rate on a portion of such income that is allocable to the percentage of our stock held in record name by “disqualified organizations,” which are generally cooperatives, governmental entities and tax-exempt organizations that are exempt from unrelated business taxable income. To the extent that our stock owned by “disqualified organizations” is held in record name by a broker-dealer or other nominee, the broker/dealer or other nominee would be liable for the corporate level tax on the portion of our excess inclusion income allocable to the stock held by the broker-dealer or other nominee on behalf of “disqualified organizations.” We expect that disqualified organizations will own our stock. Because this tax would be imposed on us, all of our investors, including investors that are not disqualified organizations, would bear a portion of the tax cost associated with the classification of us or a portion of our assets as a taxable mortgage pool. A regulated investment company or other pass through entity owning stock in record name will be subject to tax at the highest corporate rate on any excess inclusion income allocated to its owners that are disqualified organizations. Finally, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, our taxable mortgage pool securitizations will be treated as separate corporations, for federal income tax purposes that cannot be included in any consolidated corporate tax return.

We believe that we have been organized and operated in a manner that has enabled us to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended on December 31, 2005. However, the federal income tax laws governing REITs are extremely complex, and interpretations of the federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. Qualifying as a REIT requires us to meet various tests regarding the nature of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding stock, and the amount of our distributions on an ongoing basis.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any calendar year and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we will be subject to federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax on our taxable income, at regular corporate rates. Distributions to stockholders would not be deductible in computing our taxable income. Corporate tax liability would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders. Under some circumstances, we might need to borrow money or sell assets in order to pay that tax. Furthermore, if we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT and we do not qualify for the statutory relief provisions, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and not including net capital gains, to our stockholders. Unless our failure to qualify as a REIT was excused under federal tax laws, we could not re-elect to qualify as a REIT until the fifth calendar year following the year in which we failed to qualify. In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, our taxable mortgage pool securitizations will be treated as separate corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

In order to qualify as a REIT, in each calendar year we must 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. To the extent that we satisfy the 90% distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed income. In addition, we will incur a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than the sum of:

We intend to make distributions to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the 90% distribution requirement and to distribute all or substantially all of our net taxable income to avoid both corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax. There is no requirement that a domestic TRS distribute its after-tax net income to its parent REIT or their stockholders and our U.S. TRSs may determine not to make any distributions to us. However, non-U.S. TRSs, such as Apidos CDO I, Apidos CDO III, Apidos Cinco CDO, Apidos CLO VIII, Whitney CLO I and Harvest CLO VII which we discuss in “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations,” will generally be deemed to distribute their earnings to us on an annual basis for federal income tax purposes, regardless of whether such TRSs actually distribute their earnings.

Our taxable income may substantially exceed our net income as determined by GAAP because, for example, realized capital losses will be deducted in determining our GAAP net income but may not be deductible in computing our taxable income. In addition, we may invest in assets that generate taxable income in excess of economic income or in advance of the corresponding cash flow from the assets, referred to as phantom income. Although some types of phantom income are excluded to the extent they exceed 5% of our REIT taxable income in determining the 90% distribution requirement, we will incur corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax with respect to any phantom income items if we do not distribute those items on an annual basis. As a result, we may generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year. In that event, we may be required to use cash reserves, incur debt, or liquidate non-cash assets at rates or times that we regard as unfavorable in order to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax in that year.

Unless you are a tax-exempt entity, distributions that we make to you generally will be subject to tax as ordinary income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits as determined for federal income tax purposes. If the amount we distribute to you exceeds your allocable share of our current and accumulated earnings and profits, the excess will be treated as a return of capital to the extent of your adjusted basis in your stock, which will reduce your basis in your stock but will not be subject to tax. To the extent the amount we distribute to you exceeds both your allocable share of our current and accumulated earnings and profits and your adjusted basis, this excess amount will be treated as a gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset. For risks related to the use of uninvested offering proceeds or borrowings to fund distributions to stockholders, see “− Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure − We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and we cannot assure you of our ability to make distributions in the future.”

A REIT may own up to 100% of the securities of one or more TRSs. A TRS may earn specified types of income or hold specified assets that would not be qualifying income or assets if earned or held directly by the parent REIT. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. A corporation of which a TRS directly or indirectly owns more than 35% of the voting power or value of the stock will automatically be treated as a TRS. Overall, no more than 25% (20% for our 2009 and prior taxable years) of the value of a REIT's assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRSs. A TRS will pay federal, state and local income tax at regular corporate rates on any income that it earns, whether or not it distributes that income to us. In addition, the TRS rules limit the deductibility of interest paid or accrued by a TRS to its parent REIT to assure that the TRS is subject to an appropriate level of corporate taxation. The rules also impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm's-length basis.

Resource TRS, Resource TRS II, Resource TRS III, Resource TRS IV, Resource TRS V, LTCC and Resource Residential, Inc. each will pay federal, state and local income tax on its taxable income, and its after-tax net income is available for distribution to us but is not required to be distributed to us. Income that is not distributed to us by our U.S. TRSs will not be subject to the REIT 90% distribution requirement and therefore will not be available for distributions to our stockholders. We anticipate that the aggregate value of the securities we hold in our TRSs will be less than 25% of the value of our total assets, including our TRS securities. We will monitor the compliance of our investments in TRSs with the rules relating to value of assets and transactions not on an arm's-length basis. We cannot assure you, however, that we will be able to comply with such rules.

The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code substantially limit our ability to hedge MBS and related borrowings. Under these provisions, our annual gross income from qualifying and non-qualifying hedges of our borrowings, together with any other income not generated from qualifying real estate assets, cannot exceed 25% of our gross income. In addition, our aggregate gross income from non-qualifying hedges, fees and certain other non-qualifying sources cannot exceed 5% of our annual gross income determined without regard to income from qualifying hedges. As a result, we might have to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through Resource TRS. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear.

A REIT's net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. 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 were able to sell or securitize loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the loans for federal income tax purposes. Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of loans and may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions even though such sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us.

The federal income tax laws governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws may be amended at any time. We cannot predict when or if any new federal income tax law or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing federal income tax law or administrative interpretation, will become effective and any such law or interpretation may take effect retroactively. Tax law changes could depress our stock price or restrict our operations.

Dividends paid by REITs are generally not eligible for the reduced 15% maximum tax rate for dividends paid to individuals (20% for those with taxable income above $400,000 (if single) or $450,000 (if married and filing jointly) under current law. The more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause stockholders who are individuals to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stock of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends to which more favorable rates apply, which could reduce the value of the stocks of REITs. Dividends from REITs as well as regular corporate dividends will also be subject to a 3.8% Medicare surtax for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income above $200,000 (if single) or $250,000 (if married and filing jointly).

We likely will be required to include in our income, even without the receipt of actual distributions, earnings from our foreign TRSs, including from our current and contemplated equity investments in CDOs, such as our investment in Apidos CDO I, Apidos CDO III, Apidos Cinco CDO, and Apidos CLO VIII. We intend to treat certain of these income inclusions as qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test applicable to REITs but not for purposes of the REIT 75% gross income test. The provisions that set forth what income is qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test provide that gross income derived from dividends, interest and other enumerated classes of passive income qualify for purposes of the 95% gross income test. Income inclusions from equity investments in our foreign TRSs are technically neither dividends nor any of the other enumerated categories of income specified in the 95% gross income test for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and there is no clear precedent with respect to the qualification of such income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests. However, based on advice of counsel, we intend to treat such income inclusions, to the extent distributed by a foreign TRS in the year accrued, as qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test. In addition, in 2011, the IRS issued a private letter ruling to a REIT reaching a result consistent with our treatment. Nevertheless, because this income does not meet the literal requirements of the REIT provisions, it is possible that the IRS could successfully take the position that it is not qualifying income. In the event that it was determined not to qualify for the 95% gross income test, we would be subject to a penalty tax

with respect to the income to the extent it and other nonqualifying income exceeds 5% of our gross income and/or we could fail to qualify as a REIT. See “Federal Income Tax Consequences of Our Qualification as a REIT.” In addition, if such income was determined not to qualify for the 95% gross income test, we would need to invest in sufficient qualifying assets, or sell some of our interests in our foreign TRSs to ensure that the income recognized by us from our foreign TRSs or such other corporations does not exceed 5% of our gross income, or cease to qualify as a REIT.

Many of the terms of our mortgage loans, mezzanine loans and B notes and the loans supporting our MBS have been modified and may in the future be modified to avoid foreclosure actions and for other reasons. If the terms of the loan are modified in a manner constituting a “significant modification,” such modification triggers a deemed exchange for tax purposes of the original loan for the modified loan. In Revenue Procedure 2011-16, the IRS addressed the treatment of modified mortgage loans and distressed debt for purposes of the REIT gross income and asset tests. Under existing Treasury Regulations, if a loan is secured by real property and other property and the highest principal amount of the loan outstanding during a taxable year exceeds the fair market value of the real property securing the loan as of (1) the date we agreed to acquire or originate the loan or (2) in the event of certain significant modifications, the date we modified the loan, then a portion of the interest income from such a loan will not be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, but will be qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test. Although the law is not entirely clear, a portion of the loan may not be treated as a qualifying “real estate asset” for purposes of the 75% asset test. The non-qualifying portion of such a loan would be subject to, among other requirements, the 10% value test.

Revenue Procedure 2011-16 provides a safe harbor pursuant to which we will not be required to redetermine the fair market value of the real property securing a loan for purposes of the REIT gross income and asset tests in connection with a loan modification that is: (1) occasioned by a borrower default; or (2) made at a time when we reasonably believe that the modification to the loan will substantially reduce a significant risk of default on the original loan. No assurance can be provided all of our loan modifications have or will qualify for the safe harbor in Revenue Procedure 2011-16. To the extent we significantly modify loans in a manner that does not qualify for that safe harbor, we will be required to redetermine the value of the real property securing the loan at the time it was significantly modified. In determining the value of the real property securing such a loan, we generally will not obtain third party appraisals, but rather will rely on internal valuations. No assurance can be provided that the IRS will not successfully challenge our internal valuations. If the terms of our mortgage loans, mezzanine loans and B notes and loans supporting our mortgage backed securities are significantly modified in a manner that does not qualify for the safe harbor in Revenue Procedure 2011-16 and the fair market value of the real property securing such loans has decreased significantly, we could fail the 75% gross income test, the 75% asset test and/or the 10% value test. Unless we qualified for relief under certain cure provisions in the Code, such failures could cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT.

We and our subsidiaries have and may invest in future acquire distressed debt, including distressed mortgage loans, mezzanine loans, B notes and MBS. Revenue Procedure 2011-16 provides that the IRS will treat a distressed mortgage loan acquired by a REIT that is secured by real property and other property as producing in part non-qualifying income for the 75% gross income test. Specifically, Revenue Procedure 2011-16 indicates that interest income on a loan will be treated as qualifying income based on the ratio of (1) the fair market value of the real property securing the loan determined as of the date the REIT committed to acquire the loan and (2) the face amount of the loan (and not the purchase price or current value of the loan). The face amount of a distressed mortgage loan and other distressed debt will typically exceed the fair market value of the real property securing the debt on the date the REIT commits to acquire the debt. We believe that we will continue to invest in distressed debt in a manner consistent with complying with the 75% gross income test and maintaining our qualification as a REIT.

Revenue Procedure 2011-16 provides a safe harbor pursuant to which we will not be required to redetermine the fair market value of the real property securing a loan for purposes of the REIT gross income and asset tests in connection with a loan modification that is: (1) occasioned by a borrower default; or (2) made at a time when we reasonably believe that the modification to the loan will substantially reduce a significant risk of default on the original loan. No assurance can be provided that all of the loan modifications have or will be qualify for the safe harbor in Revenue Procedure 2011-16. To the extent we significantly modify loans in a manner that does not qualify for that safe harbor, we will be required to redetermine the value of the real property securing the loan at the time it was significantly modified. In determining the value of the real property securing such a loan, we generally will not obtain third party appraisals, but rather will rely on internal valuations. No assurance can be provided that the IRS will not successfully challenge our internal valuations. If the terms of our mortgage loans, mezzanine loans and B notes and loans supporting our MBS are significantly modified in a manner that does not qualify for the safe harbor in Revenue Procedure 2011-16 and the fair market value of the real property securing such loans has decreased significantly, we could fail the 75% gross income test, the 75% asset test and/or the 10% value test. Unless we qualified for relief under certain cure provisions in the Code, such failures could cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT.

We have entered into and we intend to continue to enter into sale and repurchase agreements under which we nominally sell certain of our loan assets to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase the sold assets. We believe that we have been and will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as the owner of the loan assets that are the subject of any such agreement notwithstanding that the agreement may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could assert that we did not own the loan assets during the term of the sale and repurchase agreement, in which case we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

In addition, we have acquired and will continue to acquire mezzanine loans, which are loans secured by equity interest in a partnership or limited liability company that directly or indirectly owns real property. In Revenue Procedure 2003-65, the IRS provided a safe harbor pursuant to which a mezzanine loan, if it meets each of the requirements contained in the Revenue Procedure, 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. Although the Revenue Procedure provides a safe harbor on which taxpayers may rely, it does not prescribe rules of substantive tax law. We have acquired and will continue to acquire mezzanine loans that may not meet all of the requirements for reliance on this safe harbor. In the event we own a mezzanine loan that does not meet the safe harbor, the IRS could challenge the loan's treatment as a real estate asset for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests, and if the challenge were sustained, we could fail to qualify as a REIT.


•	the cash provided by our operating activities will not be sufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest,


•	the cost of financing may increase relative to the income from the assets financed, reducing the income we have available to pay distributions, and


•	our investments may have maturities that differ from the maturities of the related financing and, consequently, the risk that the terms of any refinancing we obtain will not be as favorable as the terms of existing financing.


•	If we accumulate assets for a CDO or CLO on a short-term credit facility and do not complete the CDO financing, or if a default occurs under the facility, the short-term lender will sell the assets and we would be responsible for the amount by which the original purchase price of the assets exceeds their sale price, up to the amount of our investment or guaranty.


•	An event of default under one short-term facility may constitute a default under other credit facilities we may have, potentially resulting in asset sales and losses to us, as well as increasing our financing costs or reducing the amount of investable funds available to us.


•	We may be unable to acquire a sufficient amount of eligible assets to maximize the efficiency of a CDO or CLO issuance, which would require us to seek other forms of term financing or liquidate the assets. We may not be able to obtain term financing on acceptable terms, or at all, and liquidation of the assets may be at prices less than those we paid, resulting in losses to us.


•	We will lose money on our repurchase transactions if the counterparty to the transaction defaults on its obligation to resell the underlying security back to us at the end of the transaction term, or if the value of the underlying security has declined as of the end of the term or if we default on our obligations under the repurchase agreements.


•	Available interest rate hedges may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk against which we seek protection.


•	The duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related liability.


•	Interest rate hedging can be expensive, particularly during periods of rising and volatile interest rates. Hedging costs may include structuring and legal fees and fees payable to hedge counterparties to execute the hedge transaction.


•	tenant mix, success of tenant businesses, tenant bankruptcies and property management decisions;


•	acts of God, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances.


•	Losses on a hedge position may reduce the cash available to make distributions to stockholders, and may exceed the amounts invested in the hedge position.


•	The amount of income that a REIT may earn from hedging transactions, other than through a TRS, is limited by federal tax provisions governing REITs.


•	The credit quality of the party owing money on the hedge may be downgraded to such an extent that it impairs our ability to sell or assign our side of the hedging transaction.


•	The party owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay.


•	acquire investments subject to rights of senior classes and servicers under inter-creditor or servicing agreements;


•	acquire only a minority and/or non-controlling participation in an underlying investment;


•	co-invest with third parties through partnerships, joint ventures or other entities, thereby acquiring non-controlling interests; or


•	rely on independent third-party management or strategic partners with respect to the management of an asset.


•	changes in laws that increase operating expenses or limit rents that may be charged;


•	any need to address environmental contamination at the property;


•	the occurrence of any uninsured casualty at the property;


•	changes in national, regional or local economic conditions and/or the conditions of specific industry segments in which our lessees may operate;


•	increases in interest rates, real estate tax rates and other operating expenses;


•	changes in governmental rules, regulations and fiscal policies, including environmental legislation and zoning laws; and


•	discourage a tender offer or other transactions or a change in the composition of our board of directors or control that might involve a premium price for our shares or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders; or


•	result in shares issued or transferred in violation of such restrictions being automatically transferred to a trust for a charitable beneficiary, resulting in the forfeiture of those shares.


•	any person who beneficially owns ten percent or more of the voting power of the corporation's shares; or


•	an affiliate or associate of the corporation who, at any time within the two-year period before the date in question, was the beneficial owner of ten percent or more of the voting power of the then outstanding voting stock of the corporation.


•	80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of outstanding shares of voting stock of the corporation; and


•	two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of voting stock of the corporation other than shares held by the interested stockholder with whom or with whose affiliate the business combination is to be effected or held by an affiliate or associate of the interested stockholder.