PennyMac Mortgage (PMT) Risk Analysis

We and PLS are required to comply with a wide array of federal, state and local laws and regulations that regulate, among other things, the manner in which we conduct our loan production and servicing businesses. These regulations directly impact our business and require constant compliance, monitoring and internal and external audits. Our or PLS' failure to operate effectively and in compliance with these laws, regulations and rules could subject us to lawsuits or governmental actions, reputational damages, increased costs of doing business, reduced payments by borrowers, modification of the original terms of loans, permanent forgiveness of debt, foreclosure process delays, increased servicing advances, litigation, enforcement actions, and repurchase and indemnification obligations, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. We and PLS must also comply with a number of federal, state and local consumer protection and state foreclosure laws. These statutes apply to loan origination, servicing, debt collection, marketing, use of credit reports, safeguarding of non-public, personally identifiable information about our clients, foreclosure and claims handling, investment of and interest payments on escrow balances and escrow payment features, and mandate certain disclosures and notices to customers. Because neither we nor PLS is a federally chartered depository institution, we generally do not benefit from federal pre-emption of state mortgage loan banking, loan servicing or debt collection licensing and regulatory requirements and must comply with state licensing and compliance requirements in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and other U.S. territories. These state rules and regulations generally provide for, but are not limited to: originator, servicer and debt collector licensing requirements, requirements as to the form and content of loan agreements and other documentation, employee licensing and background check requirements, fee requirements, interest rate limits, and disclosure and record-keeping requirements. The failure of our correspondent sellers to comply with any applicable laws, regulations and rules may also result in these adverse consequences. We and PLS have in place a compliance program designed to assess areas of risk with respect to loans we acquire from such correspondent sellers. However, we and PLS may not detect every violation of law and, to the extent any correspondent sellers with which we do business fail to comply with applicable laws or regulations and any of their loans or MSRs become part of our assets, it could subject us, as an assignee or purchaser of the related loans or MSRs, to monetary penalties or other losses. While we may have contractual rights to seek indemnity or repurchase from certain lenders, if they are unable to fulfill their indemnity or repurchase obligations to us to a material extent, our business, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Our service providers and other vendors are also required to operate in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and rules. Our failure to adequately manage service providers and other vendors to mitigate risks of noncompliance with applicable laws may also have these negative results. Regulatory agencies and consumer advocacy groups are becoming more aggressive in asserting fair lending, fair housing and other claims that the practices of lenders and loan servicers result in a disparate impact on protected classes. Anti-discrimination statutes, such as the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, prohibit creditors from discriminating against loan applicants and borrowers based on certain characteristics, such as race, religion and national origin. Various federal regulatory agencies and departments take the position that these laws apply not only to intentional discrimination, but also to neutral practices that have a "disparate impact" on a group that shares a characteristic that a creditor may not consider in making credit decisions (i.e., creditor or servicing practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on a protected class of individuals). Federal and state administrations could enact significant policy changes increasing regulatory scrutiny and enforcement actions in our industry. In particular, the new presidential administration may enact significant policy and regulatory changes that may impact our industry. For example, on January 20, 2025, an executive order established the "Department of Government Efficiency" to reform federal government processes and reduce expenditures that could result in significant changes to federal housing and consumer financial regulatory agencies. Significant changes to federal agency structures, regulatory policies, or housing funding priorities could reduce funding for federal housing programs and increase regulatory uncertainty. Additionally, reforming federal agencies and regulations could fragment federal regulatory oversight among local, state, and federal regulators resulting in additional compliance costs and heightened regulatory uncertainty for our industry. While it is not possible to predict when and whether significant policy or regulatory changes will occur, any such changes on the federal, state or local level could significantly impact, among other things, our operating expenses, the availability of mortgage financing, interest rates, consumer spending, the economy and the geopolitical landscape. To the extent that the new government administration takes action by proposing and/or passing regulatory policies that could have a negative impact on our industry, such actions may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders. To the extent any such state regulator imposes minimum net worth, capital ratio, liquidity standards or other requirements that are overly burdensome, such actions may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. The Financial Stability Oversight Council ("FSOC") and Conference of State Bank Supervisors have been reviewing whether state chartered nonbank mortgage servicers should be subject to "safety and soundness" standards similar to those imposed by federal law on insured depository institutions, even though nonbank mortgage servicers do not have any federally insured deposit accounts. In November 2023, the FSOC revised its guidance governing the potential designation of nonbank financial companies for supervision by the Federal Reserve Board and application of prudential standards and an "analytic framework" for identifying, assessing and responding to financial stability risks that could facilitate new nonbank financial company designations.

Certain of our securitizations that involve the issuance of indebtedness rather than sales may likely be considered to result in the creation of TMPs for U.S. federal income tax purposes. A TMP is always classified as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, as long as a REIT owns 100% of a TMP, such classification generally does not result in the imposition of corporate income tax, because the TMP is a "qualified REIT subsidiary." In the case of such wholly-REIT owned TMPs, certain categories of our shareholders, such as foreign shareholders otherwise eligible for treaty benefits, shareholders with net operating losses, and tax exempt shareholders that are subject to unrelated business income tax, could be subject to increased taxes on a portion of their dividend income received from us that is attributable to the TMP, or "excess inclusion income." In addition, to the extent that our shares are owned in record name by tax exempt "disqualified organizations," such as certain government-related entities that are not subject to tax on unrelated business income, we may incur a corporate level tax on our allocable portion of excess inclusion income from such a wholly-REIT owned TMP. In that case and to the extent feasible, we may reduce the amount of our distributions to any disqualified organization whose share ownership gave rise to the tax, or we may bear such tax as a general corporate expense. To the extent that our shares owned by disqualified organizations are 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 shares held by the broker/dealer or other nominee on behalf of disqualified organizations. While we intend to attempt to minimize the portion of our distributions that is subject to these rules, the law is unclear concerning computation of excess inclusion income, and its amount could be significant. In the case of any TMP that would be taxable as a domestic corporation if it were not wholly-REIT owned, 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. This marketing limitation may prevent us from selling more junior or non-investment grade debt securities in such securitizations and maximizing our proceeds realized in those offerings.

During any period in which a borrower is not making payments, we may be required under our servicing agreements in respect of our MSRs to advance our own funds to pay property taxes and insurance premiums, legal expenses and other protective advances, and may be required to advance principal and interest payments to security holders of the MBS into which the loans are sold. We also advance funds under these agreements to maintain, repair and market real estate properties on behalf of investors. As home values change, we may have to reconsider certain of the assumptions underlying our decisions to make advances and, in certain situations, our contractual obligations may require us to make advances for which we may not be reimbursed. In addition, if a loan serviced by us is in default or becomes delinquent, the repayment to us of the advance may be delayed until the loan is repaid or refinanced or a liquidation occurs. Federal, state or local regulatory actions may also result in an increase in the amount of servicing advances that we are required to make, lengthen the time it takes for us to be reimbursed for such advances and increase the costs incurred while the loan is delinquent. In addition, the average share of borrowers' mortgage payments allocated to property taxes and insurance premiums has been steadily rising in recent years due to inflation and other factors, which could impact housing affordability, mortgage delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures. A delay in our ability to collect advances may adversely affect our liquidity, and our inability to be reimbursed for advances could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We are exposed to risks relating to misconduct by our and our Manager's employees, and the employees of our Manager's subsidiaries, affiliates, contractors we use, or other third parties with whom we have relationships. For example, such employees could execute unauthorized transactions, use our assets improperly or without authorization, perform improper activities, use confidential information for improper purposes, or otherwise try to hide improper activities from us. This type of misconduct could also relate to our assets managed by PCM. This type of misconduct can be difficult to detect and if not prevented or detected could result in claims or enforcement actions against us or losses. Accordingly, misconduct by our and our Manager's employees and its subsidiaries, affiliates, contractors, or others could subject us to losses or regulatory sanctions and seriously harm our reputation. Our controls may not be effective in detecting this type of activity.

Initiating new business activities or investment strategies, developing new products, or significantly expanding existing business activities or investment strategies, are ways to grow our businesses and respond to changing circumstances in our industry; however, they may expose us to new risks and regulatory compliance requirements. We cannot be certain that we will be able to manage these risks and compliance requirements effectively. Furthermore, our efforts may not succeed and any revenues we earn from any new or expanded business initiative or investment strategy may not be sufficient to offset the initial and ongoing costs of that initiative, which would result in a loss with respect to that initiative or strategy.

Our investments in MSRs, CRT, and securities and loans held in consolidated variable interest entities may be illiquid. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain or validate third-party pricing on the investments we purchase. Illiquid investments typically experience greater price volatility and can be more difficult to value as a ready market does not exist. The contractual restrictions on transfer or the illiquidity of certain of our investments, including subordinate securities we are required to hold under applicable risk retention rules, may make it difficult for us to sell such investments if the need or desire arises, which could impair our ability to satisfy margin calls or certain REIT tests. In addition, if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the recorded value, or may not be able to obtain any liquidation proceeds at all, thus exposing us to a material or total loss.

Correspondent production activities include purchasing residential loans, pooling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans into Agency MBS securities and selling or securitizing the loans. The liquidity of the MBS market may be impacted by future sales and reallocations of the Federal Reserve's MBS portfolio, resulting in wider mortgage-backed security spreads. Any significant disruption or period of illiquidity in the MBS market would directly affect our liquidity because no existing alternative secondary market would likely be able to accommodate on a timely basis the volume of loans that we typically acquire and sell in any given period. Furthermore, we would remain contractually obligated to fund loans under our outstanding interest rate lock commitments ("IRLCs") without being able to sell our existing inventory of mortgage loans. Accordingly, if the MBS market experiences a period of illiquidity, we might be prevented from selling or securitizing the loans that we produce into the secondary market in a timely manner or at favorable prices and we could be required to hold a larger inventory of loans than we have committed facilities to fund, or we may be required to repay a portion of the debt secured by these assets, all of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.