Modiv (MDV) Risk Factors

Real property and the operations conducted on real property are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment and human health. We could be subject to liability in the form of fines, penalties or damages for noncompliance with these laws and regulations. These laws and regulations generally govern wastewater discharges, air emissions, the operation and removal of underground and above-ground storage tanks, the use, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of solid and hazardous materials, the remediation of contamination associated with the release or disposal of solid and hazardous materials, the presence of toxic building materials and other health and safety-related concerns. Some of these laws and regulations may impose joint and several liability on the tenants, owners or operators of real property for the costs to investigate or remediate contaminated properties, regardless of fault, whether the contamination occurred prior to purchase, or whether the acts causing the contamination were legal. Activities of our tenants, the condition of properties at the time we buy them, operations in the vicinity of our properties, such as the presence of underground storage tanks, or activities of unrelated third parties may affect our properties. The presence of hazardous substances, or the failure to properly manage or remediate these substances, may hinder our ability to sell, rent or pledge such property as collateral for future borrowings. Any material expenditures, fines, penalties or damages we must pay will reduce our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders and could seriously harm our operating results and financial condition.

To continue to qualify as a REIT, we must 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, including investments in certain mortgage loans and residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 20% of the value of our total assets can be represented by securities of one or more TRSs. If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate from our portfolio otherwise attractive investments. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

We may purchase properties and lease them back to the sellers of such properties. We would characterize such a sale-leaseback transaction as a "true lease," which treats the lessor as the owner of the property for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In the event that any sale-leaseback transaction is challenged by the IRS and re-characterized as a financing transaction or loan for U.S. federal income tax purposes, deductions for depreciation and cost recovery relating to such property would be disallowed. If a sale-leaseback transaction were so re-characterized, we might fail to satisfy the REIT qualification "asset tests" or the "income tests" and, consequently, lose our REIT status. Alternatively, such a re-characterization could cause the amount of our REIT taxable income to be recalculated, which might also cause us to fail to meet the distribution requirement for a taxable year and thus lose our REIT status.

The U.S. federal income tax provisions applicable to REITs provide that any gain realized by a REIT on the sale of property held as inventory or other property held primarily for sale to tenants in the ordinary course of business is treated as income from a "prohibited transaction" that is subject to a 100% excise tax. Our ability to dispose of a property during the first few years following its acquisition is restricted to a substantial extent as a result of these rules. Whether property is inventory or otherwise held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business depends on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding each property. Properties we own, directly or through any subsidiary entity, including our Operating Partnership, but generally excluding our taxable REIT subsidiaries ("TRS"), may, depending on how we conduct our operations, be treated as inventory or property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business. Any taxes we pay would reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders. Our concern over paying the prohibited transactions tax may cause us to forgo disposition opportunities that would otherwise be advantageous if we were not a REIT.

We expect to operate in a manner that will allow us to continue to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, the U.S. federal income tax laws governing REITs are extremely complex, and interpretations of the U.S. 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. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends upon our analysis of the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we may not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to successfully manage the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") will not contend that our assets or income cause a violation of the REIT requirements under the Internal Revenue Code. While we intend to continue to operate so that we will qualify as a REIT, given the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, including the tax treatment of certain investments we may make, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, no assurance can be given that we will so qualify for any particular year. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any calendar year and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be required to pay U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income. We might need to borrow money or sell assets to pay that tax. Our payment of income tax would decrease the amount of our income available for distribution to our stockholders. Furthermore, if we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our REIT taxable income to our stockholders. Unless we were to qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be disqualified from re-electing to be taxed as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification was lost. In addition, as a result of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated September 19, 2019, pursuant to which Rich Uncles Real Estate Investment Trust I ("REIT I") merged with and into our newly created subsidiary "Merger Sub," with Merger Sub surviving as our direct, wholly-owned subsidiary (the "Merger"), if REIT I is determined to have lost its REIT status or not qualified as a REIT prior to the Merger, we will face serious tax consequences that would substantially reduce cash available for distribution, including cash available to pay dividends to our stockholders, because: 1.    REIT I would be subject to U.S. federal income tax on its net income at regular corporate rates for the years it did not qualify for taxation as a REIT (and, for such years, would not be allowed a deduction for dividends paid to stockholders in computing its taxable income);2.    REIT I could be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax (for tax years beginning before December 31, 2017) and possibly increased state and local taxes for such periods;3.    we would inherit any such liability, including any interest and penalties that have accrued on such U.S. federal income tax liabilities;4.    if we were considered a "successor corporation" under the Internal Revenue Code and applicable Treasury Regulations, we could not elect to be taxed as a REIT until the fifth taxable year following the year during which REIT I was disqualified; and 5.    for up to 5 years following re-election of REIT status, upon a taxable disposition of an asset owned as of such re-election, we could be subject to corporate level tax with respect to any built-in gain inherent in such asset at the time of re-election. Moreover, if REIT I failed to qualify as a REIT prior to the Merger, but we nevertheless qualified as a REIT, in the event of a taxable disposition of a former REIT I asset during the five years following the Merger, we would be subject to corporate tax with respect to any built-in gain inherent in such asset as of the Merger. The failure of REIT I to qualify as a REIT prior to the Merger could impair our ability to remain qualified as a REIT, could impair our business and ability to raise capital, and would materially adversely affect the value of our stock.

We may own one or more TRSs. A TRS may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned 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 20% of the value of a REIT's assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRSs. A domestic TRS will pay federal, state and local income tax at regular corporate rates on any income that it earns. 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. We cannot assure our stockholders that we will be able to comply with the 20% value limitation on ownership of TRS stock and securities on an ongoing basis so as to maintain REIT status or to avoid application of the 100% excise tax imposed on certain non-arm's length transactions.

At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws or regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be amended. We cannot predict when or if any new U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective and any such law, regulation or interpretation may take effect retroactively. We and our stockholders could be adversely affected by any such change in, or any new, U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation.

Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous real property owner or operator may be liable for the cost of removing or remediating hazardous or toxic substances on, under or in such property. These costs could be substantial. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. Environmental laws also may impose liens on property or restrictions on the manner in which property may be used or businesses may be operated, and these restrictions may require substantial expenditures or prevent us from entering into leases with prospective tenants that may be impacted by such laws. Environmental laws provide for sanctions for noncompliance and may be enforced by governmental agencies or, in certain circumstances, by private parties. Certain environmental laws and common law principles could be used to impose liability for the release of and exposure to hazardous substances, including asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint. Third parties may seek recovery from real property owners or operators for personal injury or property damage associated with exposure to released hazardous substances and governments may seek recovery for natural resource damage. The costs of defending against claims of environmental liability, of complying with environmental regulatory requirements, of remediating any contaminated property, or of paying personal injury, property damage or natural resource damage claims could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders. We intend that most if not all of our real estate acquisitions be subject to Phase I environmental assessments prior to the time they are acquired; however, such assessments may not provide complete environmental histories due, for example, to limited available information about prior operations at the properties or other gaps in information at the time we acquire the property. A Phase I environmental assessment is an initial environmental investigation to identify potential environmental liabilities associated with the current and past uses of a given property. If any of our properties were found to contain hazardous or toxic substances after our acquisition, the value of our investment could decrease below the amount paid for such investment.

We expect most of our rental income to come from net leases. Net leases typically contain: (i) longer lease terms; (ii) fixed rental rate increases during the primary term of the lease; and (iii) fixed rental rates or fixed increases for renewal options, and, thus, there is an increased risk that these contractual lease terms will fail to result in fair market rental rates if fair market rental rates increase at a greater rate than the fixed rental rate increases.

Any of our tenants, or any guarantor of a tenant's lease obligations, could be subject to a bankruptcy proceeding pursuant to Title 11 of the bankruptcy laws of the United States. Such a bankruptcy filing would bar all efforts by us to collect pre-bankruptcy debts from these entities or their properties, including any work performed by contactors that could result in mechanics liens on our property, unless we receive an enabling order from the bankruptcy court. Post-bankruptcy debts would be paid currently. If a lease is assumed, all pre-bankruptcy balances owing under it must be paid in full. If a lease is rejected by a tenant in bankruptcy, we would have a general unsecured claim for damages. If a lease is rejected, it is unlikely we would receive any payments from the tenant because our claim is capped at the rent reserved under the lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year or 15% of the remaining term of the lease, but not greater than three years, plus rent already due but unpaid. This claim could be paid only in the event funds were available, and then only in the same percentage as that realized on other unsecured claims. If mechanics liens are filed on our property, we could be required to pay the amounts owed to contractors if they are not paid by the tenant in order to avoid a foreclosure. A tenant or lease guarantor bankruptcy could delay efforts to collect past due balances under the relevant leases, and could ultimately preclude full collection of these sums. Such an event could cause a decrease or cessation of rental payments that would mean a reduction in our cash flow and the amount available for distributions to stockholders. In the event of a bankruptcy, we cannot assure stockholders that the tenant or its trustee will assume our lease. If a given lease, or guaranty of a lease, is not assumed, our cash flow and the amounts available for distributions to stockholders may be adversely affected. Further, our lenders may have a first priority claim to any recovery under the leases, any guarantees and any credit support, such as security deposits and letters of credit. In addition, we often enter into sale-leaseback transactions, whereby we purchase a property and then lease the same property back to the person from whom we purchased it. In the event of the bankruptcy of a tenant, a transaction structured as a sale-leaseback may be recharacterized as either a financing or a joint venture, either of which outcomes could adversely affect our business. If the sale-leaseback were recharacterized as a financing, we might not be considered the owner of the property, and as a result would have the status of a creditor in relation to the tenant. In that event, we would no longer have the right to sell or encumber our ownership interest in the property. Instead, we would have a claim against the tenant for the amounts owed under the lease, with the claim arguably secured by the property. The tenant/debtor might have the ability to propose a plan to restructure the term, interest rate and amortization schedule of its outstanding balance. If confirmed by the bankruptcy court, we could be bound by the new terms, and prevented from foreclosing our lien on the property. If the sale-leaseback were recharacterized as a joint venture, our lessee and we could be treated as co-venturers with regard to the property. As a result, we could be held liable, under some circumstances, for debts incurred by the lessee relating to the property. Either of these outcomes could adversely affect our cash flow and the amount available for distributions to stockholders.

While we are focused on future acquisitions of industrial manufacturing properties, we expect that most of our properties will be occupied by only one tenant or will derive a majority of their rental income from one tenant and, therefore, the success of those properties will be materially dependent on the financial stability of such tenants. Lease payment defaults by tenants could cause us to reduce the amount of distributions we pay. A default of a tenant on its lease payments to us and the potential resulting vacancy would cause us to lose the revenue from the property and force us to find an alternative source of revenue to meet any mortgage payment and prevent a foreclosure if the property is subject to a mortgage. In the event of a default, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-letting the property, and we may be required to renovate the property or to make rent concessions in order to lease the property to another tenant. If a lease is terminated or an existing tenant elects not to renew a lease upon its expiration, there is no assurance that we will be able to lease the property for the rent previously received or sell the property without incurring a loss. In addition, many of our single-tenant properties are also special-use and if the current lease is terminated or not renewed and we are forced to sell the property, we may have difficulty selling it to a party other than the tenant or borrower due to the special purpose for which the property may have been designed. A default by a tenant, the failure of a guarantor to fulfill its obligations or other premature termination of a lease, or a tenant's election not to extend a lease upon its expiration, and other limitations, could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and our ability to pay distributions.

While we intend to diversify our portfolio of investments by geography, investment size and investment risk, we are not required to observe specific diversification criteria. Therefore, our investments may at times be concentrated in a limited number of geographic locations, or secured by assets concentrated in a limited number of geographic locations. To the extent that our portfolio is concentrated in limited geographic regions, industries or business sectors, downturns relating generally to such region, industry or business sector may result in defaults on a number of our investments within a short time period, which may reduce our net income and the value of our Class C Common Stock and accordingly limit our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders. As of December 31, 2023, nine of our 44 operating properties, including one held for sale property and our approximate 72.7% TIC Interest, are located in California, which makes the performance of our properties highly dependent on the health of the California economy. Furthermore, we are not required to meet any property-type, tenant or geographic diversification standards. Therefore, our investments may become concentrated by type, tenant or geographic location, which could subject us to significant risks with potentially adverse effects on our investment objectives. For example, 76% of our ABR as of December 31, 2023, is concentrated in industrial property assets and we expect that percentage to continue to increase as we target acquisitions of additional industrial property assets and dispose of our remaining legacy retail and office assets. Any adverse economic or real estate developments in our markets could adversely affect our operating results and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.