Invesco Mortgage (IVR) Risk Factors

Our business is subject to extensive regulation by federal and state governmental authorities, self-regulatory organizations, and securities exchanges. We are required to comply with numerous federal and state laws. The laws, rules and regulations comprising this regulatory framework change frequently, as can the interpretation and enforcement of existing laws, rules, and regulations. From time to time, we may receive requests from federal and state agencies for records, documents, and information regarding our policies, procedures, and practices regarding our business activities. We may incur significant ongoing costs to comply with these government regulations. These requirements can and do change as statutes and regulations are enacted, promulgated, amended, and interpreted, and the recent trends among federal and state lawmakers and regulators have been toward increasing laws, regulations, and investigative proceedings concerning the mortgage industry generally. Although we believe that we have structured our operations and investments to comply with existing legal and regulatory requirements and interpretations, changes in regulatory and legal requirements, including changes in their interpretation and enforcement by lawmakers and regulators, could materially and adversely affect our business and our financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations.

The U.S. government, Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury, SEC and other U.S. and foreign governmental and regulatory bodies have taken a number of economic actions and regulatory initiatives from time-to-time designed to stabilize and stimulate the economy and the financial markets, and additional actions and initiatives may occur in the future. While our current exposure to transactions in foreign currencies is limited, uncertainties regarding geopolitical developments can produce volatility in global financial markets, which could have a negative impact on our business in the future. There can be no assurance that, in the long term, actions that governments and regulatory bodies or central banks have taken in the past or may take in the future will improve the efficiency and stability of mortgage or financial markets. To the extent the financial markets do not respond favorably to any of these actions or such actions do not function as intended, our business may be harmed. In addition, because the programs are designed, in part, to improve the markets for certain of our target assets, the establishment of these programs may result in increased competition for attractive opportunities in our target assets or, in the case of government-backed refinancing and modification programs, may have the effect of reducing the revenues associated with certain of our target assets. We cannot predict whether or when additional actions or initiatives to stabilize and stimulate the economy and the financial markets may occur, and such actions could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The payments of principal and interest we receive on our Agency MBS, which depend directly upon payments on the mortgages underlying such securities, are guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are U.S. Government-sponsored entities, or GSEs, but their guarantees are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States (although the FHFA largely controls their actions through its conservatorship of the two GSEs). Ginnie Mae is part of a U.S. Government agency and its guarantees are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Although the U.S. Government has undertaken several measures to support the positive net worth of the GSEs since the 2008 financial crisis, there is no guarantee of continuing capital support, if such support were to become necessary. Despite the steps taken by the U.S. Government, GSEs could default on their guarantee obligations which would materially and adversely affect the value of our Agency MBS. Accordingly, if these government actions are inadequate in the future and the GSEs were to suffer losses, be significantly reformed, or cease to exist, our business, operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. The future roles of the GSEs may be reduced (perhaps significantly) and the nature of their guarantee obligations could be limited relative to historical measurements. Alternatively, it is possible that the GSEs could be dissolved entirely or privatized, and, as mentioned above, the U.S. Government could determine to stop providing liquidity support of any kind to the mortgage market. Any changes to the nature of the GSEs or their guarantee obligations could redefine what constitutes an Agency MBS and could have broad adverse implications for the market and our business, operations and financial condition. If Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac were eliminated or their structures were to change, limiting or removing the guarantee obligation, we could be unable to acquire additional Agency MBS and our existing Agency MBS could be materially and adversely impacted. All of the foregoing could negatively affect the availability and value of Agency MBS; our ability to obtain financing on our Agency MBS; or our ability to maintain our compliance with the terms of any financing transactions, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

To qualify as a REIT, at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our assets must consist of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified real estate assets. The remainder of our investments in securities (other than qualified real estate assets, government securities and securities of our taxable REIT subsidiaries) generally cannot include more than 10% of the voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the value of the outstanding securities of more than any one issuer (other than securities that qualify for the straight-debt safe harbor) unless we and such issuer jointly elect for such issuer to be treated as a "taxable REIT subsidiary" under the Code. Debt will generally meet the "straight debt" safe harbor if the debt is a written unconditional promise to pay on demand or on a specified date a certain sum of money, the debt is not convertible, directly or indirectly, into stock, and the interest rate and the interest payment dates of the debt are not contingent on the profits, the borrower's discretion, or similar factors. Additionally, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities, qualified real estate assets and securities of our taxable REIT subsidiaries) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, no more than 20% of the value of our assets may be represented by securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries, and no more than 25% of the value of our assets may consist of "nonqualified publicly offered REIT debt instruments." If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must dispose of a portion of our assets within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions in order to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences. In order to satisfy these requirements and maintain our qualification as a REIT, we may be forced to liquidate assets from our portfolio or not make otherwise attractive investments. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

To qualify as a REIT, we are required at all times to satisfy tests relating to, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the ownership of our stock and the amounts we distribute to our stockholders. Compliance with the REIT requirements may impair our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing profits. For example, we may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution.

To qualify as a REIT, we must comply with requirements regarding our assets and sources of income. If we are compelled to liquidate our investments to repay obligations to our lenders, we may be unable to comply with these requirements, ultimately jeopardizing our qualifications as a REIT.

We conduct our operations so that neither we, nor our operating partnership, IAS Operating Partnership LP (the "Operating Partnership"), nor the subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership are required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act. Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. We believe neither we nor our Operating Partnership will be considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act. Rather, through our Operating Partnership's wholly owned or majority-owned subsidiaries, we and our Operating Partnership will be primarily engaged in the non-investment company businesses of these subsidiaries, namely the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring real property, mortgages and other interests in real estate. Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of the issuer's total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis, which we refer to as the 40% test. Excluded from the term "investment securities," among other things, are U.S. government securities and securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries that are not themselves investment companies and are not relying on the exception from the definition of investment company set forth in Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act. We are a holding company that conducts business through the Operating Partnership and the Operating Partnership's wholly owned or majority-owned subsidiaries. Both we and the Operating Partnership conduct our operations so that we comply with the 40% test. Accordingly, the securities issued by these subsidiaries that are excepted from the definition of "investment company" under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities the Operating Partnership may own, may not have a value in excess of 40% of the value of the Operating Partnership's total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Compliance with the 40% test limits the types of businesses in which we are permitted to engage through our subsidiaries. Furthermore, certain of the Operating Partnership's current subsidiaries and subsidiaries that we may form in the future intend to rely upon an exception from the definition of investment company under Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, which is available for entities "primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate." This exception generally requires that at least 55% of a subsidiary's portfolio must be comprised of qualifying assets and at least 80% of its portfolio must be comprised of qualifying assets and real estate-related assets (and no more than 20% comprised of miscellaneous assets). In analyzing a subsidiary's compliance with Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, we classify investments based in large measure on SEC staff guidance, including no-action letters, and, in the absence of SEC guidance, on our view of what constitutes a qualifying real estate asset and a real estate-related asset. Qualification for an exception from the definition of investment company under the 1940 Act limits our ability to make certain investments. Therefore, the Operating Partnership's subsidiaries may need to adjust their respective assets and strategy from time-to-time to continue to rely on the exception from the definition of investment company under Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. Any such adjustment in assets or strategy is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business or strategy. There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain this exception from the definition of investment company for the Operating Partnership's subsidiaries intending to rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. We may in the future organize one or more subsidiaries that seek to rely on other exceptions from being deemed an investment company under the 1940 Act. Any such subsidiary would need to be structured to comply with any guidance that may be issued by the SEC staff, including no-action letters, and, in the absence of SEC guidance, on our view of what constitutes a qualifying real estate asset and a real estate-related asset. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of REITs will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations or inhibits our ability to pursue our strategies. Any issuance of more specific or different guidance relating to the relevant exemptions and exceptions from the definition of an investment company under the 1940 Act could similarly affect or inhibit our operations. If we, the Operating Partnership or its subsidiaries fail to maintain an exemption from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required to (a) change the investments that we hold or the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (b) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or (c) register as an investment company. Any of these events could cause us to incur losses and negatively affect the value of our capital stock, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to pay dividends, which could have an adverse effect on our business and the market price for our shares of capital stock. In addition, if it were established that we were an unregistered investment company, there would be a risk that we would be subject to monetary penalties or injunctive relief imposed by the SEC.

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, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to this tax if we were to dispose of or securitize loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the loans for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Therefore, to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of loans at the REIT level and may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions, even though the sales or such structures might otherwise be beneficial to us.

We may conduct certain activities or invest in assets through one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. A taxable REIT subsidiary is a corporation other than a REIT in which a REIT directly or indirectly holds stock, and that has made a joint election with such REIT to be treated as a taxable REIT subsidiary. Other than some activities relating to hotel and health care properties, a taxable REIT subsidiary may generally engage in any business, including the provision of services to tenants of its parent REIT. A taxable REIT subsidiary is subject to U.S. federal income tax as a regular C corporation, including any applicable corporate alternative minimum tax. No more than 20% of the value of our total assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. This requirement limits the extent to which we can conduct our activities through taxable REIT subsidiaries. The values of some of our assets, including assets that we hold through taxable REIT subsidiaries, may not be subject to precise determination, and values are subject to change in the future. Furthermore, if a REIT lends money to a taxable REIT subsidiary, the taxable REIT subsidiary may be unable to deduct all or a portion of the interest paid to the REIT, which could increase the tax liability of the taxable REIT subsidiary. In addition, as a REIT, we must pay a 100% penalty tax on certain payments that we receive if the economic arrangements between us and any of our taxable REIT subsidiaries are not comparable to similar arrangements between unrelated parties. We intend to structure transactions with any taxable REIT subsidiary on terms that we believe are arm's length to avoid incurring the 100% excise tax described above; however, the IRS may successfully assert that the economic arrangements of any of our inter-company transactions are not comparable to similar arrangements between unrelated parties.

Securitizations could result in the creation of taxable mortgage pools for U.S. 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. Certain categories of stockholders, however, 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 the taxable mortgage pool. Because we hold substantially all of our assets through the Operating Partnership, the foregoing rules would not apply if the Operating Partnership was treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes and was, or owned an equity interest in, a taxable mortgage pool, and any such taxable mortgage pool would be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes and could prevent us from qualifying as a REIT. These limitations may prevent us from using certain techniques to maximize our returns from securitization transactions. Similarly, if we acquire REMIC residual interests (or equity interests in taxable mortgage pools in a manner consistent with our REIT qualification) and generate "excess inclusion income," a portion of our dividends received by a tax-exempt stockholder will be treated as unrelated business taxable income. The excess inclusion income would also be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax rules in the case of U.S. taxable stockholders and non-U.S. stockholders.

Under Section 163(j) of the Code, the deduction for business interest expense may be limited to the amount of the taxpayer's business interest income plus 30% of the taxpayer's "adjusted taxable income" unless the taxpayer's gross receipts do not exceed $25 million per year during the applicable testing period or the taxpayer qualifies to elect and elects to be treated as an "electing real property trade or business." A taxpayer's adjusted taxable income will start with its taxable income and add back items of non-business income and expense, business interest income and business interest expense, net operating losses, and any deductions for "qualified business income." A taxpayer that is exempt from the interest expense limitations as an electing real property trade or business is ineligible for certain expensing benefits and is subject to less favorable depreciation rules for real property. The rules for business interest expense will apply to us and at the level of each entity in which or through which we invest that is not a disregarded entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes. To the extent that our interest expense is not deductible, our taxable income will be increased, as will our REIT distribution requirements and the amounts we need to distribute to avoid incurring income and excise taxes.

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, net income from the sale of properties or assets that are "dealer" properties or assets sold by a REIT (a "prohibited transaction" under the Code) will be subject to a 100% tax. We may not make sufficient distributions to avoid excise taxes applicable to REITs. If we were to fail either gross income 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 gross income test requirements. 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, we could elect to cause our stockholders to be treated as if they earned that income and paid the tax we paid. 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 thereon seek a refund of such tax. 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, such as our domestic taxable REIT subsidiaries, which are subject to full U.S. federal, state, local and foreign corporate-level income taxes. Any taxes we pay directly or indirectly will reduce our cash available for distribution to you.

Non-U.S. investments may subject us to various non-U.S. tax liabilities, including withholding taxes. In addition, operating in functional currencies other than the U.S. dollar and in environments in which real estate transactions are typically structured differently than they are in the United States or are subject to different legal rules may present complications to our ability to structure non-U.S. investments in a manner that enables us to satisfy the REIT qualification requirements. Even if we maintain our status as a REIT, entities through which we hold investments in assets located outside the United States may be subject to income taxation by jurisdictions in which such assets are located or in which our subsidiaries that hold interests in such assets are located. Any such taxes could adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition, and our cash available for distribution to our stockholders will be reduced by any such foreign income taxes.

In recent years, numerous legislative, judicial and administrative changes have been made in the provisions of U.S. federal income tax laws applicable to investments similar to an investment in shares of our stock. The 2017 tax reform legislation commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has resulted in fundamental changes to the Code, with many of the changes applicable to individuals applying only through December 31, 2025. Federal legislation intended to ameliorate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act made technical corrections to, or modified on a temporary basis, certain of the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. 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 assets and/or mortgage loans to elect to be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a corporation. As a result, our charter authorizes our board of directors to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if it determines that changes to U.S. federal income tax laws and regulations or other considerations mean it is no longer in our best interests to qualify as a REIT. There can be no assurance that future tax law changes will not increase income tax rates, impose new limitations on deductions, credits or other tax benefits, or make other changes that may adversely affect our business, cash flows or financial performance or a stockholder's investment in us. You are urged to consult with your tax advisor with respect to the impact of these legislative changes on your investment in our shares and the status of legislative, regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect on an investment in our shares.