Apollo Real Estate (ARI) Risk Factors

We conduct our operations so as not to become regulated as an investment company under the 1940 Act. Because we are a holding company that conducts our businesses primarily through wholly-owned subsidiaries, the securities issued by these subsidiaries that are exempted or otherwise excluded 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" (as defined for purposes of the 1940 Act) we own, may not have a combined value in excess of 40% of the value of our total assets on an unconsolidated basis, which we refer to as the 40% test. This requirement limits the types of businesses in which we may engage through our subsidiaries. Certain of our subsidiaries qualify to be excluded from registration as investment companies under the 1940 Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, which is available for an entity "not engaged in the business of issuing redeemable securities, face-amount certificates of the installment type or periodic payment plan certificates, and who is primarily engaged in … the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate." This exclusion generally requires that at least 55% of the assets of an entity relying on this exclusion be comprised of what the SEC staff through a series of no-action letters has characterized as "qualifying assets" and at least another 25% of the assets of such entity be comprised of either qualifying assets or what the SEC staff in such guidance has characterized as "real estate-related assets" under the 1940 Act (and no more than 20% comprised of miscellaneous assets). We expect any of our subsidiaries relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) to rely on guidance published by the SEC staff to determine which assets are qualifying assets and which assets are real estate related under this exclusion to the extent such guidance is available. The SEC staff has determined in various no-action letters that qualifying assets for this purpose include senior, first ranking mortgage loans, certain B Notes and mezzanine loans that satisfy various conditions specified in such SEC staff no-action letters. Neither the SEC nor its staff has, however, published guidance in respect of Section 3(c)(5)(C) regarding some of our other target assets. For assets for which the SEC and its staff has not published guidance, we intend to rely on our own analysis to determine which of such assets are qualifying assets and which of such assets are real estate related under the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion. For example, in the absence of additional guidance from the SEC staff, we intend to treat as real estate related assets B Notes and mezzanine loans that do not satisfy the qualifying asset conditions set forth in the relevant SEC staff no-action letters, as well as debt and equity securities of companies primarily engaged in real estate businesses. To the extent that the SEC staff publishes new or different guidance with respect to these matters, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. In addition, we may be limited in our ability to make certain investments and these limitations could result in the subsidiary holding assets we might wish to sell or selling assets we might wish to hold. Although we monitor the portfolios of our subsidiaries relying on the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion periodically and prior to each acquisition, there can be no assurance that such subsidiaries will be able to maintain their respective satisfaction of the requirements of this exclusion. Any additional guidance from the SEC staff could provide additional flexibility to us, or it could further inhibit our ability to pursue the strategies we have chosen. We may organize subsidiaries in the future that may seek to rely on the 1940 Act exclusion provided to certain structured financing vehicles under Rule 3a-7. To comply with Rule 3a-7, any such subsidiary will need to comply with the restrictions described below, as well as any future guidance that may be issued by the SEC or its staff. In general, Rule 3a-7 excludes from the 1940 Act issuers that limit their activities as follows: - the issuer issues securities, the payment of which depends primarily on the cash flow from "eligible assets," which are assets that by their terms convert into cash within a finite time period;- the securities sold are fixed-income securities rated investment grade by at least one rating agency except that fixed- income securities which are unrated or rated below investment grade may be sold to institutional accredited investors and any securities may be sold to "qualified institutional buyers" and to persons involved in the organization or operation of the issuer;- the issuer acquires and disposes of eligible assets (1) only in accordance with the agreements pursuant to which the securities are issued and (2) so that the acquisition or disposition does not result in a downgrading of the issuer's fixed-income securities and (3) the primary purpose of which is not recognizing gains or decreasing losses resulting from market value changes; and - unless the issuer is issuing only commercial paper, the issuer appoints an independent trustee, takes reasonable steps to transfer to the trustee an ownership or perfected security interest in the eligible assets, and meets rating agency requirements for commingling of cash flows. In addition, in certain circumstances, compliance with Rule 3a-7 may also require, among other things, that the indenture governing the Rule 3a-7 reliant subsidiary include additional limitations on the types of assets such subsidiary may sell or acquire out of the proceeds of assets that mature, are refinanced or otherwise sold, on the period of time during which such transactions may occur, and on the level of transactions that may occur. In light of the requirements of Rule 3a-7, there is no assurance that our future subsidiaries will be able to rely on this rule and our ability to manage assets held in subsidiaries that rely on this rule will be limited and may restrict our ability to purchase or sell assets owned by that subsidiary when we would otherwise desire to do so, which could lead to losses. In the absence of further SEC or SEC staff guidance, the aggregate value of our interests in our subsidiaries that rely on Rule 3a-7 must amount to less than 20% of our total assets on an unconsolidated basis. Any amendments to Rule 3a-7 could provide additional flexibility or could inhibit the ability of our subsidiaries to rely on this rule or to pursue certain strategies we have identified for such subsidiaries. Our subsidiaries may rely on alternative exclusions or exemptions from registration as investment companies under the 1940 Act other than Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) for purposes of complying with the 40% test. These alternative exclusions or exemptions may impose limitations on a subsidiary's organizational form, the types of assets that such subsidiary may hold or require such subsidiary to qualify under a banking, insurance or other regulatory regime. There is no assurance that our subsidiaries will be able to rely on any alternative exclusions or exemptions and our ability to manage assets held in subsidiaries that rely on these alternative exclusions or exemptions will be limited. The determination of whether an entity is our majority-owned subsidiary is made by us. The 1940 Act defines a majority-owned subsidiary of a person as a company with 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 1940 Act further 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 the SEC or its staff to approve our treatment of any entity as a majority-owned subsidiary and the SEC has not done so. If the SEC or its staff were to disagree with our treatment of one of more entities as majority-owned subsidiaries, we would need to adjust our strategy and our assets in order to continue to pass the 40% test. Any such adjustment in our strategy could have a material adverse effect on us. We have organized special purpose subsidiaries that rely on Section 3(c)(7) to avoid registration as investment companies under the 1940 Act to hold certain assets and, therefore, our interest in each of these Section 3(c)(7)-reliant subsidiaries constitutes an "investment security" for purposes of determining whether we pass the 40% test. Qualification for particular exclusions or exemptions from registration under 1940 Act as described herein may limit our or our subsidiaries' ability to make certain investments. If we failed to maintain our excluded status under the 1940 Act and became regulated as an investment company, our ability to, among other things, use leverage would be substantially reduced and, as a result, we would be unable to conduct our business as described in this annual report on Form 10-K. If our subsidiaries fail to maintain an exclusion or exemption from registration pursuant to the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (a) change 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 which could negatively affect the value of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to make distributions which could have an adverse effect on our business and the market price for shares of our common stock.

A number of judicial decisions have upheld the right of borrowers to sue lending institutions on the basis of various evolving legal theories, collectively termed "lender liability." Generally, lender liability is founded on the premise that a lender has either violated a duty, whether implied or contractual, of good faith and fair dealing owed to the borrower or has assumed a degree of control over the borrower resulting in the creation of a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower or its other creditors or stockholders. We cannot assure prospective investors that such claims will not arise or that we will not be subject to significant liability if a claim of this type did arise.

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 as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to this tax if we were to sell or securitize loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the loans as inventory for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of loans, other than through a TRS, and we may be required to limit the structures we use for our securitization transactions, even though such sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial for us.

Apollo generally follows an open architecture approach to information sharing within the larger Apollo organization and does not normally impose information barriers within its asset management business. If the Manager were to receive material non-public information about a particular company, or have an interest in investing in a particular company, Apollo or certain of its affiliates may be prevented from investing in or disposing of investments in such company. Conversely, if Apollo or certain of our affiliates were to receive material non-public information about a particular company or have an interest in investing in a particular company we may be prevented from investing in or disposing of investments in such company. This risk affects us more than it does investment vehicles that are not related to Apollo, as Apollo generally does not use information barriers within its asset management business that many firms implement to separate persons who make investment decisions from others who might possess material, non-public information that could influence such decisions. Apollo's approach to these barriers could prevent the Manager's investment professionals from undertaking advantageous investments or dispositions that would be permissible for them otherwise. In addition, Apollo could in the future decide to establish information barriers within its asset management business, particularly as it expands and diversifies. In such event, Apollo's ability to operate as an integrated asset management platform will be restricted and the Manager's resources may be limited.

We do not have any employees and we rely completely on the Manager to provide us with investment and advisory services. We have no separate facilities and are completely reliant on the Manager, which has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and strategies. We depend on the diligence, skill and network of business contacts of the Manager. We benefit from the personnel, relationships and experience of the Manager's executive team and other personnel and investors of Apollo. The executive officers and key personnel of the Manager evaluate, negotiate, close and monitor our investments; therefore, our success will depend on their continued service. We also depend, to a significant extent, on the Manager's access to the investment professionals and partners of Apollo and the information and deal flow generated by the Apollo investment professionals in the course of their investment and portfolio management activities. The departure of any senior personnel of the Manager, or of a significant number of the investment professionals or partners of Apollo, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to achieve our investment objectives. In addition, we offer no assurance that the Manager will remain our investment manager, that we will continue to have access to the Manager's or Apollo's executive officers and other investment professionals, or that we will be able to find a suitable replacement for the Manager if the Management Agreement is terminated.

We believe the risks associated with our business will be more severe during periods of economic slowdown or recession if these periods are accompanied by declining real estate values. In addition, our investment model may be adversely affected if there is an economic recession or if it continues longer or is deeper than we may anticipate. Declining real estate values will likely reduce the level of new mortgage and other real estate-related loan originations since borrowers often use appreciation in the value of their existing properties to support the purchase or investment in additional properties. Borrowers may also be less able to pay principal and interest on our loans if the value of real estate weakens. Further, declining real estate values significantly increase the likelihood that we will incur losses on our loans in the event of default because the value of our collateral may be insufficient to cover our cost on the loan. Any sustained period of increased payment delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect the Manager's ability to invest in, sell and securitize loans, which would materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and business and our ability to pay dividends to stockholders.