Granite Point Mortgage (GPMT) Risk Factors

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 that 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. Rather, through our wholly owned or majority-owned subsidiaries, we are primarily engaged in non-investment company businesses related to real estate. 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 for purposes of 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. To maintain our status as a non-investment company, the securities issued to us by any wholly owned or majority-owned subsidiaries that we may form in the future that are excluded from the definition of investment company under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, together with any other investment securities we may own, may not have a value in excess of 40% of the value of our total assets on an unconsolidated basis. We monitor our holdings to ensure ongoing compliance with this test, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain an exclusion or exemption from registration. The 40% test limits the types of businesses in which we may engage through our subsidiaries. In addition, the assets we and our subsidiaries may originate or acquire are limited by the provisions of the Investment Company Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Investment Company Act, which may adversely affect our business. We hold our assets primarily through direct or indirect wholly owned or majority-owned subsidiaries, certain of which are excluded from the definition of investment company pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act. To qualify for the exclusion pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C), based on positions set forth by the SEC staff, each such subsidiary generally is required to hold at least (i) 55% of its assets in "qualifying" real estate assets and (ii) at least 80% of its assets in "qualifying" real estate assets and real estate-related assets. For our subsidiaries that maintain the exclusion under Section 3(c)(5)(C) or another exclusion or exemption under the Investment Company Act (other than Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) thereof), our interests in these subsidiaries do not and will not constitute "investment securities." As a consequence of our seeking to avoid the need to register under the Investment Company Act on an ongoing basis, we and/or our subsidiaries may be restricted from making certain investments or may structure investments in a manner that would be less advantageous to us than would be the case in the absence of such requirements. In particular, a change in the value of any of our assets could negatively affect our ability to maintain our 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 mortgage 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 maintain our exclusion from the Investment Company Act may cause us and/or our subsidiaries to acquire or hold additional assets that we might not otherwise have acquired or held or dispose of investments that we and/or our subsidiaries might not have otherwise disposed of, which could result in higher costs or lower proceeds to us than we would have paid or received if we were not seeking to comply with such requirements. Thus, avoiding registration under the Investment Company Act may hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing profits. We determine whether an entity is a majority-owned subsidiary of the 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. We classify our assets for purposes of certain of our subsidiaries' Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion from the Investment Company Act based upon no-action positions taken by the 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 mortgage 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 mortgage loans for the purposes of the Investment Company Act. We treat CMBS, 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 as real estate-related assets. We note that the SEC staff's prior 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 these no-action positions 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 the Investment Company Act. There is no guarantee that we will be able to adjust our assets in the manner required to maintain our exclusion from 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 more specific guidance regarding any of the matters bearing upon the definition of investment company and the exemptions and exclusions to that definition, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. Any additional guidance from the SEC or its staff could provide additional flexibility to us, or it could further inhibit our ability to pursue the strategies we have chosen. There can be no assurance that we and our subsidiaries will be able to successfully avoid registration as an 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. 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), 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 dividends to our stockholders.

We are subject to regulation by laws and regulations at the local, state and federal levels. These laws and regulations, 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. Furthermore, if regulatory capital requirements imposed on our financing providers change, they may be required to limit, or increase the cost of, financing they provide to us. In general, this could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity or require us to sell assets at an inopportune time or price.

Nonbank companies are generally required to hold licenses in a number of U.S. states to conduct lending and other related activities. State licensing statutes vary from state to state and may prescribe or impose various recordkeeping requirements; restrictions on loan origination, acquisition, enforcement 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; and restrictions on advertising. Obtaining and maintaining licenses 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.

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.

Advocacy groups, government agencies, the general public, regulators, customers, investors, employees and other stakeholders are increasingly focusing on ESG matters and related disclosures. Such governmental, investor and societal attention to ESG matters, including expanding mandatory and voluntary reporting, diligence, and disclosure on topics such as climate change, human capital, labor and risk oversight, could expand the nature, scope, and complexity of matters that we are required to manage, assess and report, which could negatively impact the market price of our securities. We are subject to changing rules and regulations promulgated by a number of governmental and self-regulatory organizations, including the SEC, the NYSE and the FASB. These rules and regulations continue to evolve in scope and complexity and many new requirements have been created in response to laws enacted by Congress, making compliance more difficult, costly and uncertain. Further, new and emerging regulatory initiatives related to climate change and ESG could adversely affect our business. These changing rules, regulations and stakeholder expectations have resulted in, and are likely to continue to result in, increased general and administrative expenses and increased management time and attention spent complying with or meeting such regulations and expectations, including in areas such as diversity, equity and inclusion, human rights, climate change and environmental stewardship, support for local communities, corporate governance and transparency and considering ESG factors in our investment processes. Further, we may choose to communicate certain initiatives and goals regarding environmental matters, diversity, responsible sourcing and social investments and other ESG-related matters, in our SEC filings or in other public disclosures. These initiatives and goals within the scope of ESG could be difficult and expensive to implement and we could be criticized for the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of the disclosure. Statements about our ESG related initiatives and goals, and progress against those goals, may be based on standards for measuring progress that are still developing, internal controls and processes that continue to evolve and assumptions that are subject to change in the future. In addition, we could be criticized for the scope or nature of such initiatives or goals, or for any revisions to these goals. If we are unable to adequately address such ESG matters or if we fail to achieve progress with respect to our goals within the scope of ESG on a timely basis, or at all, or if we or our borrowers fail or are perceived to fail to comply with all laws, regulations, policies and related interpretations, it could negatively impact our reputation and our business results.

From time to time, our taxable income may be greater than our cash flow available for distribution to stockholders. If we do not have other funds available in these situations, we may be unable to distribute substantially all of our taxable income as required by the REIT provisions of the Code. Thus, we could be required to borrow funds, sell a portion of our assets at disadvantageous prices or find another alternative. These options could increase our costs or reduce the value of our equity.

The REIT provisions of the Code substantially limit our ability to hedge our assets and liabilities. Any income from a hedging transaction will not constitute gross income for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income test if we properly identify the transaction as specified in applicable Treasury regulations and we enter into such transaction (i) in the normal course of our business primarily to manage risk of interest rate or price changes or currency fluctuations with respect to borrowings made or to be made, or ordinary obligations incurred or to be incurred, to acquire or carry real estate assets or (ii) primarily to manage risk of currency fluctuations with respect to any item of income or gain that would be qualifying income under the 75% or 95% income tests. In addition, income from certain new hedging transactions that counteract prior qualifying hedging transactions described in (i) and (ii) above may not constitute gross income for purposes of the 75% and 95% gross income tests if we properly identify the new hedging transaction as specified in applicable Treasury regulations. 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 TRS. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities because our TRS 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 TRS, generally, will not provide any tax benefit, except for being carried forward against future taxable income in the TRS.

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 TRS under the Code. The total value of all of our investments in TRSs 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 TRS or a disregarded entity, 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 stockholders.

Properties underlying our investments may be subject to other unknown or unquantifiable liabilities that may adversely affect the value of our investments. Such defects or deficiencies may include title defects, title disputes, liens or other encumbrances on the mortgaged properties. The discovery of such unknown defects, deficiencies and liabilities could affect the ability of our borrowers to make payments to us or could affect our ability to take title to and sell the underlying properties, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Currently, the maximum tax rate applicable to qualified dividend income payable to certain non-corporate U.S. stockholders is 20%. Dividends payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for the reduced rate. Although this does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends payable by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends 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 shares of our common stock. Under current law, for taxable years before January 1, 2026, REIT dividends (other than capital gain dividends and qualified dividends) received by non-corporate taxpayers may be eligible for a 20% deduction which, if allowed in full, equates to a maximum effective U.S. federal income tax rate on ordinary REIT dividends of 29.6%. Prospective investors should consult their own tax advisors regarding the effect of this rule on their effective tax rate with respect to REIT dividends.

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 commercial 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, or 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 loans through a TRS and not at the REIT level (which would give rise to corporate-level tax), and may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions, even though direct sales by us or those structures might otherwise be beneficial to us.

There is limited case law and administrative guidance addressing whether instruments such as mezzanine loans and preferred equity investments will be treated as equity or debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We expect that our mezzanine loans generally will be treated as debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and our preferred equity investments generally will be treated as equity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, but 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 a mezzanine loan is treated 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 mezzanine loan and we would be treated as receiving our proportionate share of the income of that entity. If that partnership or limited liability company owned non-qualifying assets or earned non-qualifying income, we may not be able to satisfy all of the REIT income or asset tests. Alternatively, if the IRS successfully asserts a preferred equity investment is debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes, then that investment may be treated as a non-qualifying asset for purposes of the 75% asset test and as producing non-qualifying income for the 75% gross income test. In addition, such an investment may be subject to the 10% value test and the 5% asset test, and it is possible that a preferred equity investment that is treated as debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes could cause us to fail one or more of the foregoing tests. Accordingly, we could fail to qualify as a REIT if the IRS does not respect our classification of our mezzanine loans or preferred equity for U.S. federal income tax purposes 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.

Securitizations could result in the creation of taxable mortgage pools for federal income tax purposes. As a REIT, so long as we own 100% of the equity interests in a taxable mortgage pool, we generally would not be adversely affected by the characterization of the securitization as a taxable mortgage pool. However, we would be precluded from selling equity interests in these securitizations to outside investors, or selling any debt securities issued in connection with these securitizations that might be considered to be equity interests for tax purposes. Certain categories of stockholders such as foreign stockholders eligible for treaty or other benefits, stockholders with net operating losses, and certain tax-exempt stockholders that are subject to unrelated business income tax, could be subject to increased taxes on a portion of their dividend income from us that is attributable to "excess inclusion income." In addition, to the extent that our stock is owned by tax-exempt "disqualified organizations," such as certain government-related entities and charitable remainder trusts that are not subject to tax on unrelated business income, we may incur a corporate level tax on a portion of our income from the taxable mortgage pool. In that case, we may reduce the amount of our distributions to pay the tax on any "excess inclusion income" ourselves. These limitations may prevent us from using certain techniques to maximize our returns from securitization transactions. In order to control better, and to attempt to avoid, any distribution of "excess inclusion income" to our stockholders, a subsidiary REIT of ours currently owns 100% of the equity interests in each taxable mortgage pool created by our securitizations. While we believe that we have structured our securitizations such that the above taxes would not apply to our stockholders with respect to taxable mortgage pools held by our subsidiary REIT, our subsidiary REIT is in part owned by a TRS of ours, which will pay corporate level tax on any income that it may be allocated from the subsidiary REIT. In addition, our subsidiary REIT is required to satisfy, on a stand-alone basis, the REIT asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements described above, and if it were to fail to qualify as a REIT, then (i) our subsidiary REIT would face adverse tax consequences similar to those described above with respect to our qualification as a REIT and (ii) such failure could have an adverse effect on our ability to comply with the REIT income and asset tests and thus could impair our ability to qualify as a REIT unless we could avail ourselves of certain relief provisions.

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, or between the recognition of a taxable deduction and the actual payment of cash, may occur. For example, we may acquire assets, including debt securities requiring us to accrue original issue discount, or OID, or recognize market discount income, that generate taxable income in excess of economic income or in advance of the corresponding cash flow from the assets, which is referred to as "phantom income." In addition, if a borrower with respect to a particular debt instrument encounters financial difficulty rendering it unable to pay stated interest as due, we may nonetheless be required to continue to recognize the unpaid interest as taxable income, with the effect that we will recognize income but will not have a corresponding amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders. Finally, we may be required, under the terms of indebtedness, that we incur to use cash received from interest payments to make principal payments on that indebtedness, with the effect of recognizing income but not having a corresponding amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders. 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 shares of 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. Moreover, we may acquire distressed loans or other debt investments that require subsequent modification by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding debt are "significant modifications" under applicable 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.

The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of REITs may be modified, possibly with retroactive effect, by legislative, judicial, or administrative action at any time, which could affect the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in us. The U.S. federal income tax rules dealing with REITs are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process, the IRS, and the U.S. Treasury, which results in statutory changes as well as frequent revisions to regulations and interpretations. Several recent proposals have been made that would make substantial changes to the U.S. federal income tax laws generally. We cannot predict whether any of these proposed changes will become law. Future revisions in the U.S. federal tax laws and interpretations thereof may affect or cause us to change our investments and commitments, and affect the tax considerations of an investment in us. Any such revisions could have an adverse effect on an investment in our securities or on the market value or the resale potential of our assets. Stockholders are urged to consult with their tax advisor with respect to the impact of such revisions on their 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.

Even if we qualify and maintain our status as a REIT, we may become subject to U.S. federal income taxes and related state and local taxes. For example, gain 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. Also, we may not make 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 be subject to tax on the income that does not meet the income test requirements or is generated by assets that do not meet the asset test requirements 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 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 our assets. In addition, our TRS is 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.