PennyMac Mortgage (PMT) Risk Analysis

The CFPB and state regulators have regulatory authority over certain aspects of our business as a result of our residential mortgage banking activities, including, without limitation, the authority to conduct investigations, bring enforcement actions, impose monetary penalties, require remediation of practices, pursue administrative proceedings or litigation, and obtain cease and desist orders for violations of applicable federal consumer financial laws. The current CFPB administration has stated its intention to aggressively supervise, investigate and, where it deems appropriate, bring enforcement actions against lenders and servicers the CFPB believes are engaged in activities that violate federal laws and regulations. In addition, examinations by state regulators and enforcement actions in the residential mortgage origination and servicing sectors by state attorneys general have increased and may continue to increase. Our or PLS' failure to comply with the laws, rules or regulations to which we are subject, whether actual or alleged, would expose us or PLS to fines, penalties or potential litigation liabilities, including costs, settlements and judgments, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our or PLS' business, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We 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. PLS and the service providers it uses, including outside counsel retained to process foreclosures and bankruptcies, must also comply with these legal requirements. Our failure or the failure of PLS 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 contracts 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. PLS has in place a compliance program designed to assess areas of risk with respect to loans we acquire from such correspondent sellers. However, we 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 affect on a protected class of individuals). Federal and state administrations could enact significant policy changes increasing regulatory scrutiny and enforcement actions in our industry. While it is not possible to predict when and whether significant policy or regulatory changes would occur, any such changes on the federal, state or local level could significantly impact, among other things, our operating expenses and the availability of mortgage financing. To the extent that the current 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 regulators impose new minimum net worth, capital ratio and liquidity standards that are overly burdensome, such actions may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. The outcome of the 2024 U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections could result in significant policy changes or regulatory uncertainty in our industry. While it is not possible to predict when and whether significant policy or regulatory changes would 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 any 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 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. On November 3, 2023, 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. Also, on August 17, 2022, the FHFA and Ginnie Mae announced enhanced minimum net capital and liquidity eligibility requirements for sellers, servicers and issuers that commenced in 2023. To the extent any new minimum net worth, capital ratio and liquidity standards and requirements are overly burdensome, complying with such standards and requirements may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

We intend to continue to make distributions to our shareholders to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and to avoid paying corporate income tax on undistributed income. However, differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash could require us to sell assets, borrow funds on a short-term or long-term basis, or issue equity to meet the distribution requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. We may find it difficult or impossible to meet distribution requirements in certain circumstances. Due to the nature of the assets in which we invest and may invest and to our accounting elections for such assets, we may be required to recognize taxable income from those assets in advance of our receipt of cash flow on or proceeds from disposition of such assets. In addition, pursuant to the Tax Act, we generally will be required to recognize certain amounts in income no later than the time such amounts are reflected on our financial statements filed with the SEC. The application of this rule may require the accrual of income with respect to loans, MBS, and other types of debt securities or interests in debt securities held by us, such as original issue discount or market discount, earlier than would be the case under other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. As a result, to the extent such income is not realized within a TRS, the requirement to distribute a substantial portion of our net taxable income could cause us to: (i) sell assets in adverse market conditions, (ii) borrow on unfavorable terms, (iii) distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt or (iv) make a taxable distribution of our shares as part of a distribution in which shareholders may elect to receive shares or (subject to a limit measured as a percentage of the total distribution) cash, in order to comply with REIT requirements.

Because we are organized as a holding company that conducts business primarily through the Operating Partnership and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, our status under the Investment Company Act is dependent upon the status of our Operating Partnership which, as a holding company, in turn, will have its status determined by the status of its subsidiaries. If our Operating Partnership or one or more of its subsidiaries fail to maintain their exceptions or exclusions from the Investment Company Act and we do not have available to us another basis on which we may avoid registration, we may have to register under the Investment Company Act. This could subject us to substantial regulation with respect to our capital structure (including our ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the Investment Company Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, and other matters. It could also cause the breach of covenants we or our subsidiaries have made under certain of our financing arrangements, which could result in an event of default, acceleration of debt and/or termination. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of REITs, including guidance and interpretations from the Division of Investment Management of the SEC regarding the exceptions and exclusions therefrom, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If the SEC takes action that could result in our or our subsidiaries' failure to maintain an exception or exclusion from the Investment Company Act, we could, among other things, be required to (a) restructure 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 (which, among other things, would require us to comply with the leverage constraints applicable to investment companies), any of which could negatively affect the value of our common shares, the sustainability of our business model, our financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our shareholders. Further, a loss of our Investment Company Act exceptions or exclusions would allow PCM to terminate our management agreement with us, and our loan servicing agreement with PLS is subject to early termination in the event our management agreement is terminated for any reason. If either of these agreements is terminated, we will have to obtain the services on our own, and we may not be able to replace these services in a timely manner or on favorable terms, or at all. This would have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue to execute our business strategy and would likely negatively affect our financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our shareholders. We intend to operate so that we and each of our subsidiaries are not required to register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act. We believe that our subsidiary, PMC, qualifies for one or more exemptions under the Investment Company Act because of the historical and current composition of its assets and income; however, there can be no assurances that the composition of PMC's assets and income will remain the same over time such that one or more exemptions will continue to be applicable. If PMC is required to register as an investment company, we would be required to comply with a variety of substantive requirements under the Investment Company Act that impose, among other things: limitations on capital structure; restrictions on specified investments; prohibitions on transactions with affiliates; compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting and proxy disclosure; and, other rules and regulations that would significantly increase our operating expenses. Further, if PMC was or is required to register as an investment company, PMC would be in breach of various representations and warranties contained in its financial arrangements resulting in a default as to certain of our contracts and obligations. This could also subject us to civil or criminal actions or regulatory proceedings, or result in a court appointed receiver to take control of us and liquidate our business, any or all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, and ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Our business is subject to significant reputational risks. If we fail, or appear to fail, to address various issues that may give rise to reputational risk, we could significantly harm our business. Such issues include, but are not limited to, actual or perceived conflicts of interest and violations of legal or regulatory requirements. Similarly, market rumors and actual or perceived association with counterparties whose own reputations are under question could harm our business. We may not adequately monitor and address potential conflicts between our interests and those of PFSI, PCM and PLS. We have implemented procedures and controls to be followed when real or potential conflicts of interest arise, but it is possible that potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to the dissatisfaction of, or litigation by, our investors or regulatory enforcement actions. Appropriately dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and difficult, and our reputation could be damaged if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with one or more potential or actual conflicts of interest. Regulatory scrutiny, litigation or reputational risk incurred in connection with conflicts of interest would adversely affect our business in a number of ways and may adversely affect our results of operations. Reputational risk incurred in connection with conflicts of interest could negatively affect our financial condition and business, strain our working relationships with regulators and government agencies, expose us to litigation and regulatory action, impact our ability to attract and retain customers, trading counterparties, investors and employees and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders. Reputational damage can result from our actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending and debt collection practices, corporate governance, and actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to those activities. Negative public opinion can also result from social media and media coverage, whether accurate or not. Our reputation may also be negatively impacted by our environmental, social, governance and other corporate sustainability practices ("Corporate Sustainability"). In addition, various private third-party organizations have developed ratings processes for evaluating companies on their approach to Corporate Sustainability matters. These third-party Corporate Sustainability ratings may be used by some investors to assist with their investment and voting decisions. Any unfavorable Corporate Sustainability ratings may lead to reputational damage and negative sentiment among our investors and other stakeholders. These factors could impair our working relationships with government agencies and investors, expose us to litigation and regulatory action, negatively affect our ability to attract and retain customers, trading counterparties and employees, significantly harm our common share price and ability to raise capital, and adversely affect our results of operations.

The rules dealing with federal income taxation, including 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 our common shares. Changes to the tax laws, including the U.S. federal tax rules that affect 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 Treasury Regulations and interpretations. Revisions in U.S. federal tax laws and interpretations thereof could materially and adversely affect us and our shareholders. We also may enter into certain transactions where the REIT eligibility of the assets subject to such transactions is uncertain. In circumstances where the application of these rules and regulations affecting our investments is not clear, we may have to interpret them and their application to us. If the IRS were to take a position adverse to our interpretation, the consequences of such action could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code may limit our ability to hedge our assets, liabilities and operations. Under current law, any income from a hedging transaction we enter into either (i) to manage risk of interest rate changes with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or carry real estate assets, (ii) to manage risk of currency fluctuations with respect to items of income that qualify for purposes of the REIT 75% or 95% gross income tests or assets that generate such income, or (iii) to hedge another instrument that hedges risks described in clause (i) or (ii) for a period following the extinguishment of the liability or the disposition of the asset that was previously hedged by the instrument, provided, that, in each case, such instrument is properly identified under applicable Treasury regulations, will not be treated as qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may have to limit our use of hedging techniques that might otherwise be advantageous, which could result in greater risks associated with interest rate or other changes than we would otherwise be subject to.

We acquire and/or expect to acquire in the secondary market debt instruments that we may significantly modify for less than their face amount, MBS issued with original issue discount, MBS acquired at a market discount, or debt instruments or MBS that are delinquent as to mandatory principal and interest payments. In each case, we may be required to report income regardless of whether corresponding cash payments are received or are ultimately collectible. If we eventually collect less than we had previously reported as income, there may be a bad debt deduction available to us at that time or we may record a capital loss in a disposition of such asset, but our ability to benefit from that bad debt deduction or capital loss would depend on our having taxable income or capital gains, respectively, in that later taxable year or a subsequent taxable year. This possible "income early, losses later" phenomenon could materially and adversely affect us and our shareholders if it were persistent and in significant amounts.

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.

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 loans, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We would be subject to this tax if we were to sell loans that we held primarily for sale to customers in a securitization transaction effected through the REIT. Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we engage in such sales of loans through the TRS. We may hold a substantial amount of assets in one or more TRSs that are subject to corporate income tax on its earnings, which may reduce the cash flow generated by us and our subsidiaries in the aggregate, and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders. We acquire and hold residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") and have engaged, and expect to continue to engage, in RMBS trading activity as we evaluate our RMBS portfolio on a regular basis and reposition it from time to time as a trader. We acquire RMBS positions with the intention of holding them for investment and not for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We intend to conduct such trading activities under internal guidelines that we believe are sufficient to demonstrate that this is the case. We therefore believe that we will not be treated as engaging in "prohibited transactions" that would be subject to a 100% tax on any net gain derived from RMBS sales. However, we do not expect that such trading activities will fall within a statutory "safe harbor" that would conclusively protect us against an assertion by the IRS to the contrary. If the IRS were successfully to require treatment of sales made in the course of such trading activities as "prohibited transactions," it would subject any net gain derived from such sales to this 100% tax, but would not affect our qualification as a REIT.

Even if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain U.S. federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, taxes on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, and state or local income, property and transfer taxes, such as mortgage recording taxes. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our shareholders. We also engage in business activities that are required to be conducted in a TRS. In order to meet the REIT qualification requirements, or to avert the imposition of a 100% tax that applies to certain gains derived by a REIT from dealer property or inventory, we hold a significant portion of our assets through, and derive a significant portion of our taxable income and gains in, a TRS, subject to the limitation that securities in a TRS may not represent more than 20% of our assets in order for us to remain qualified as a REIT. All taxable income and gains derived from the assets held from time to time in our TRS are subject to regular corporate income taxation. In addition, although REITs are not subject to the corporate alternative minimum tax, a TRS may be subject to this tax if a TRS's three-year average annual adjusted financial statement income exceeds $1 billion.

Our success in the mortgage industry is highly dependent upon the ability of PLS and PFSI to adapt to constant technological changes, successfully enhance their current information technology solutions through the use of third-party and proprietary technologies, and introduce new solutions and services that more efficiently address our needs. Our correspondent production activities are currently dependent, in part, upon the ability of PLS to effectively interface with our mortgage lenders and other third parties and to efficiently process loan fundings and closings. The correspondent production process is becoming more dependent upon technological advancement, and our correspondent sellers expect and require certain conveniences and service levels. While we anticipate that PLS' and PFSI's cloud-based system will increase scalability and produce other efficiencies, there can be no assurance that PLS' and PFSI's cloud-based system will prove to be effective or that such correspondent sellers will easily adapt to PLS' and PFSI's cloud-based system. Any failure to effectively or timely transition to the new system and meet our expectations and the expectations of our correspondent sellers could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The development, implementation and protection of these technologies and becoming more proficient with them may also require significant capital expenditures by PLS and PFSI. As these technological advancements increase in the future, PLS and PFSI will need to further develop and invest in these technological capabilities to remain competitive. Moreover, litigation has become required for PLS and PFSI to protect its technologies and such litigation is time consuming and costly. Any failure of PLS and other PFSI subsidiaries to develop, implement, execute or maintain its technological capabilities and any litigation costs associated with the protection of its technologies could adversely affect PLS and other PFSI subsidiaries and their ability to effectively perform their loan production and servicing activities on our behalf, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The risks associated with our investments are more acute during periods of economic slowdown or recession, especially if these periods are accompanied by high unemployment and declining real estate values. A prolonged economic slowdown, a recession, high unemployment or declining real estate values significantly increase the likelihood that borrowers may default on their debt service obligations and that we will incur losses on our investments in the event of a default on a particular investment because the fair value of any collateral we foreclose upon may be insufficient to cover the full amount of such investment or may require a significant amount of time to realize. A significant deterioration in macroeconomic conditions could also reduce the amount of disposable income consumers have and negatively impact the consumers' ability to take out new loans and repay existing loans. These factors may also increase the likelihood of re-default rates even after we have completed loan modifications. Any period of increased payment delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect the net interest income generated from our portfolio and our ability to make and finance future investments, which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.