Rand Capital (RAND) Risk Factors

Our portfolio consists primarily of debt and equity investments in small companies. Compared to larger companies, small companies generally have more limited access to capital and higher funding costs, may be in a weaker financial position and may need more capital to expand, compete and operate their business. They also typically have fewer administrative resources, which can lead to greater uncertainty in their ability to generate accurate and reliable financial data, including their ability to deliver audited financial statements. In addition, many small companies may be unable to obtain financing from the public capital markets or other traditional sources, such as commercial banks, in part because loans made to these types of companies entail higher risks than loans made to companies that have larger businesses, greater financial resources or are otherwise able to access traditional credit sources on more attractive terms. A variety of factors may affect the ability of borrowers to make scheduled payments on debt securities or loans, including failure to satisfy financial targets and covenants, a downturn in a borrower's industry or changes in the economy in general. In addition, investing in small companies in general involves a number of significant risks, including that small companies: -   may have limited financial resources and may be unable to meet their obligations under their debt securities that we hold, which may be accompanied by a deterioration in the value of any collateral and a reduction in the likelihood of us realizing any guarantees we may have obtained in connection with our investment;-   typically have shorter operating histories, narrower product lines and smaller market shares than larger businesses, which tend to render small companies more vulnerable to competitors' actions and market conditions, as well as general economic downturns;-   are more likely to depend on the management talents and efforts of a small group of persons; therefore, the death, disability, resignation or termination of one or more of these persons could have a material adverse impact on our portfolio company and, in turn, on us;-   generally have less predictable operating results, may be engaged in rapidly changing businesses with products subject to a substantial risk of obsolescence, and may require substantial additional capital to support their operations, finance expansion or maintain their competitive position;-   may from time to time be parties to litigation, and our executive officers, directors and our investment adviser may, in the ordinary course of business, be named as defendants in litigation arising from our investments in the portfolio companies;-   may have difficulty accessing the capital markets to meet future capital needs, which may limit their ability to grow or to repay their outstanding indebtedness upon maturity; and -   may be particularly vulnerable to changes in customer preferences and market conditions, depend on a limited number of customers, and face intense competition, including from companies with greater financial, technical, managerial and marketing resources. Any of these factors or changes thereto could impair a small company's financial condition, results of operation, cash flow or result in other adverse events, such as bankruptcy, any of which could limit a borrower's ability to make scheduled payments on our debt securities. This, in turn, could result in losses in our investments and a decrease in our net interest income and net asset value per share.

We have originated or invested in, and may in the future originate or invest in, covenant-lite loans to our portfolio companies, which means the loan agreement or other debt instrument governing these debt obligations contains fewer maintenance covenants than other loan agreements or debt obligations, or no maintenance covenants, and may not include covenants that we could use to monitor the financial performance of the portfolio company borrower, including covenants based upon compliance with financial ratios, and declare a default under the loan agreement or other debt instrument if the specified covenants are breached. While these loans or other debt obligations to portfolio company borrowers may still contain other collateral protections, a covenant-lite loan may carry more risk than a covenant-heavy loan made to the same portfolio company borrower as it does not require this borrower to provide affirmation that certain specific financial tests have been satisfied on a routine basis, as is generally required under a covenant-heavy loan agreement or other debt instrument. Generally, covenant-lite loans or other debt instruments provide borrowers more freedom, which may negatively impact lenders because these covenants, if any, tend to be incurrence-based, meaning they are only tested and can only be breached following an affirmative action of the borrower, rather than by deterioration in the borrower's financial condition. Should the financial condition of a portfolio company borrower begin to deteriorate, our investment in or origination of covenant-lite loans or other debt instruments to such portfolio company borrower may potentially reduce our ability to restructure such problematic loan and mitigate potential loss. As a result of our investment in or origination of covenant-lite loans, our exposure to losses may be increased, which could result in an adverse impact on the Corporation's revenues, net income and NAV per share.

We may need additional capital to fund new investments and grow. We may access the capital markets periodically to issue equity securities. We are not generally able to issue and sell our common stock at a price below net asset value per share. We may, however, sell our common stock at a price below the then-current net asset value of our common stock if our Board determines that such sale is in the best interests of us and our shareholders, and our shareholders approve, giving us the authority to do so. Although we currently do not have such authorization, we may seek such authorization in the future. In addition to amounts available to be borrowed under our Credit Facility, we may also issue debt securities or borrow additional amounts from financial institutions in order to obtain such additional capital, up to the maximum amount permitted by the 1940 Act. The 1940 Act permits us to issue debt securities or incur indebtedness only in amounts such that our asset coverage, as defined in the 1940 Act, equals at least 200% immediately after such issuance or incurrence. Unfavorable economic conditions could increase our funding costs and limit our access to the capital markets or result in a decision by lenders not to extend credit to us. A reduction in the availability of new capital could limit our ability to grow. In addition, we are required to distribute at least 90% of our net ordinary income and net short-term capital gains in excess of net long-term capital losses, if any, to our shareholders to maintain our RIC election. As a result, these earnings may not be available to fund new investments if such distributions are made in cash. If we are unable to access the capital markets or if we are unable to borrow from financial institutions, we may be unable to grow our business and execute our business strategy fully, and our earnings, if any, could decrease, which could have an adverse effect on the value of our common stock.

Under the terms of the Investment Management Agreement, the Base Management Fee is payable even if the value of our investment portfolio declines. The Base Management Fee is calculated based on the total assets (other than cash or cash equivalents but including assets purchased with borrowed funds), as determined according to procedures duly adopted by the Board. Accordingly, the Base Management Fee is payable regardless of whether the value of Rand's total assets or investment portfolio has decreased during the then-current quarter and creates an incentive for RCM to incur leverage, such as borrowings under our Credit Facility, which may not be consistent with our shareholders' interests. The Incentive Fee payable to RCM is calculated based on a percentage of our return on invested capital. The terms of the Incentive Fee calculation may create an incentive for RCM to make investments on our behalf that are risky or more speculative than would be the case in the absence of such compensation arrangement. Unlike the Base Management Fee, the Income Based Fee is payable only if the hurdle rate is achieved. Because the portfolio earns investment income on gross assets while the hurdle rate is based on net assets, and because the use of leverage, such as borrowings under our Credit Facility, increases gross assets without any corresponding increase in net assets, RCM may be incentivized to incur leverage to grow the portfolio, which will tend to enhance returns where our portfolio has positive returns and increase the chances that the hurdle rate is achieved. Conversely, the use of leverage may increase losses where our portfolio has negative returns, which would impair the value of our common stock. In addition, RCM receives the Incentive Fees based, in part, upon net capital gains realized on our investments under the Capital Gains Fee. Unlike the Income Based Fee, there is no hurdle rate applicable to the Capital Gains Fee. As a result, RCM may have an incentive to invest more capital in investments that are likely to result in capital gains as compared to income producing securities. Such a practice could result in our investing in more speculative equity securities than would otherwise be the case, which could result in higher investment losses, particularly during economic downturns.

As a BDC, we may not acquire any assets other than "qualifying assets" unless, at the time of and after giving effect to such acquisition, at least 70% of our total assets are qualifying assets. We believe that most of the investments that we may acquire in the future will constitute qualifying assets. However, we may be precluded from investing in what we believe to be attractive investments if such investments are not qualifying assets for purposes of the 1940 Act. If we do not invest a sufficient portion of our assets in qualifying assets, we could violate the 1940 Act provisions applicable to BDCs. As a result of such violation, specific rules under the 1940 Act could prevent us, for example, from making follow-on investments in existing portfolio companies (which could result in the dilution of our position) or could require us to dispose of investments at inappropriate times in order to come into compliance with the 1940 Act. If we need to dispose of such investments quickly, it could be difficult to dispose of such investments on favorable terms. We may not be able to find a buyer for such investments and, even if we do find a buyer, we may have to sell the investments at a substantial loss. Any such outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. If we do not maintain our status as a BDC, we would be subject to regulation as a registered closed-end investment company under the 1940 Act. As a registered closed-end investment company, we would be subject to substantially more regulatory restrictions under the 1940 Act, which would significantly decrease our operating flexibility.

We are prohibited under the 1940 Act from participating in certain transactions with certain of our affiliates without the prior approval of the "required majority" of our directors as defined in Section 57(o) of the 1940 Act and, in some cases, the SEC. Any person that owns, directly or indirectly, 5% or more of our outstanding voting securities will be our affiliate for purposes of the 1940 Act, and we will generally be prohibited from buying from, or selling to, such affiliate any securities, absent the prior approval of the "required majority" of our directors as defined in Section 57(o) of the 1940 Act. The 1940 Act also prohibits certain "joint" transactions with certain of our affiliates, including other funds or clients advised by RCM or its affiliates, which in certain circumstances could include investments in the same portfolio company (whether at the same or different times to the extent the transaction involves a joint investment), without prior approval of our Board and, in some cases, the SEC. If a person acquires more than 25% of our voting securities, or is otherwise deemed to control, be controlled by, or be under common control with us, we will be prohibited from buying from, or selling to, such person or certain of that person's affiliates any securities, or entering into prohibited joint transactions with such persons, absent the prior approval of the SEC. For example, given East's approximately 64% ownership position in our common stock, this prohibition impacts our ability to participate in certain transactions or investments where East is involved, including with respect to certain of the loans and other securities that were contributed to us by East as part of the consideration for East's purchase of our common stock in the Transaction, to the extent such loans and other securities are also held by East or another one of our affiliates. Similar restrictions limit our ability to transact business with our officers or directors or their affiliates or anyone who is under common control with us. As a result of these restrictions, we may also be prohibited from buying securities from, or selling securities to, any portfolio company that is controlled by a fund managed by either RCM or its affiliates without the prior approval of the SEC, which may limit the scope of investment or disposition opportunities that would otherwise be available to us. The analysis of whether a particular transaction constitutes a joint transaction requires a review of the relevant facts and circumstances then existing. On October 7, 2020, we, RCM and certain of our affiliates received the Order from the SEC to permit us to co-invest in portfolio companies with certain other affiliates, including other BDCs and registered investment companies, managed by RCM and certain of its affiliates in a manner consistent with our investment objective, subject to compliance with certain conditions. On March 29, 2021, the SEC granted us, RCM, Callodine, and certain of their affiliates the New Order that supserseded the Order and permits us to co-invest with affiliates managed by RCM and Collodine. The New Order was sought in connection with the completion of the Adviser Change of Control. After the Adviser Change of Control, Callodine held a controlling interest in RCM. Pursuant to the New Order, we generally are permitted to co-invest with affiliates covered by the New Order if a "required majority" (as defined in Section 57(o) of the 1940 Act) of our independent directors make certain conclusions in connection with a co-investment transaction, including that (1) the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to us and our shareholders and do not involve overreaching of us or our shareholders on the part of any person concerned, (2) the transaction is consistent with the interests of our shareholders and is consistent with our investment objective and strategies, and (3) the investment by our affiliates would not disadvantage us, and our participation would not be on a basis different from or less advantageous than that on which our affiliates are investing. In addition, on September 6, 2022, the SEC granted an amendment to the New Order to permit us to participate in follow-on investments in our existing portfolio companies with certain Affiliated Funds (as defined in the New Order) that do not hold any investments in such existing portfolio companies. In situations when co-investment with funds managed by RCM or its affiliates is not permitted under the 1940 Act and related rules, existing or future staff guidance, or the terms and conditions of the exemptive relief granted to us by the SEC, RCM and its affiliates will need to decide which client or clients (including us) will proceed with the investment. Generally, we will not be entitled to make a co-investment in these circumstances and, to the extent that a client (other than us) is granted the opportunity to proceed with the investment, we will not be permitted to participate in the investment we otherwise may have made.

Even though we may have structured certain of our investments as senior loans, if one of our portfolio companies were to go bankrupt, depending on the facts and circumstances, including the size of our investment and the extent to which we actually provided managerial assistance to that portfolio company, a bankruptcy court might recharacterize our debt investment and subordinate all or a portion of our claim to that of other creditors. In addition, lenders can be subject to lender liability claims for actions taken by them where they become too involved in the borrower's business or exercise control over the borrower. It is possible that we could become subject to a lender's liability claim, including as a result of actions taken in rendering significant managerial assistance.

We invest primarily in debt securities issued by our portfolio companies. In some cases portfolio companies are permitted to have other debt that ranks equal with, or senior to, the debt securities in which we invest. By their terms, such debt instruments may provide that the holders thereof are entitled to receive payment of interest or principal on or before the dates on which we are entitled to receive payments in respect of the debt securities in which we invest. Also, in the event of insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of a portfolio company, holders of debt instruments ranking senior to our investment in that portfolio company would typically be entitled to receive payment in full before we receive any distribution in respect of our investment. After repaying such senior creditors, such portfolio company may not have any remaining assets to use for repaying its obligation to us. In the case of debt ranking equal with debt securities in which we invest, we would have to share on an equal basis any distributions with other creditors holding such debt in the event of an insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of a portfolio company.

We are subject to the risk that investments intended to be held over long periods are, instead, repaid prior to maturity. When this occurs, we will generally reinvest these proceeds in temporary investments that will typically have substantially lower yields than the debt being prepaid or repay outstanding borrowings under our Credit Facility that has a lower interest rate than the yield of the debt being prepared, and we could experience significant delays in reinvesting these amounts. Any future investment may also be at lower yields than the debt that was repaid. As a result, our results of operations could be materially adversely affected if one or more of our portfolio companies elects to prepay amounts owed by them. Additionally, prepayments could negatively impact our return on equity, which could result in a decline in the market price of our common stock.

The Credit Facility is, and any future borrowing facility may be, backed by all of our portfolio company investments on which the lenders will or, in the case of a future facility, may have a security interest. We expect that any security interests we grant will be set forth in a pledge and security agreement and evidenced by the filing of financing statements by the agent for the lenders. If we were to default under the terms of any debt instrument, including under the Credit Facility, the agent for the lenders would be able to assume control of the timing of disposition of any or all of our assets securing such debt, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, any security interests as well as negative covenants under the Credit Facility or any other borrowing facility may limit our ability to create liens on assets to secure additional debt and may make it difficult for us to restructure or refinance indebtedness at or prior to maturity or obtain additional debt or equity financing. In addition, if our borrowing base under the Credit Facility or any other borrowing facility were to decrease, we would be required to secure additional assets in an amount equal to any borrowing base deficiency. In the event that all of our assets are secured at the time of such a borrowing base deficiency, we could be required to repay advances under the Credit Facility or any other borrowing facility, which could have a material adverse impact on our ability to fund future investments and to make distributions to shareholders. An event of default under the Credit Facility or any other borrowing facility could result in an accelerated maturity date for all amounts outstanding thereunder, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. This could reduce our liquidity and cash flows and impair our ability to grow our business and maintain our qualification as a RIC.

Because we often borrow money to make investments, our net investment income will depend, in part, upon the difference between the rate at which we borrow funds under our Credit Facility to make an investment and the rate at which we invest those funds. As a result, a significant change in market interest rates may have a material adverse effect on our net investment income in the event we use debt to finance our investments. In periods of rising interest rates, our cost of funds would increase, which could reduce our net investment income.

We have outstanding existing indebtedness and, subject to the limitations imposed under our Credit Agreement, may in the future borrow additional money under our Credit Facility with M&T Bank, as lender, which magnifies the potential for gain or loss on amounts invested and may increase the risk of investing with us. Our ability to service our existing and potential future debt depends largely on our financial performance, which is impacted by the financial performance of our portfolio companies, and is subject to prevailing economic conditions and competitive pressures. If the fair value of our consolidated assets decreases while we have debt outstanding, leveraging would cause our NAV to decline more sharply than it otherwise would have had we not leveraged. In addition, if the fair value of our consolidated assets declines substantially, we may fail to maintain the asset coverage ratios imposed upon us by the 1940 Act or our Lender. Similarly, any decrease in our consolidated income while we have debt outstanding would cause net income to decline more sharply than it would have had we not borrowed. Such a decline could negatively affect our ability to pay distributions to shareholders and the price of our common stock.

We may not have the funds or ability to make additional investments in our portfolio companies. After our initial investment in a company, we may be asked to participate in another round of financing by the company. There is no assurance that we will make, have sufficient funds to make or be permitted to make under the 1940 Act, these follow-on investments. Any decision to not make an additional investment in a portfolio company may have a negative impact on the portfolio company in need of the capital and have a negative impact on our investment in the company.

The principals and certain members of the Investment Committee of RCM manage other funds and accounts, including for entities affiliated with members of the Investment Committee. Accordingly, they have obligations to those investors, the fulfillment of which may not be in the best interests of, or may be adverse to the interests of, us or our shareholders. Although the principals, members of the Investment Committee and other professional staff of RCM are expected to devote as much time to our management as appropriate to enable RCM to perform its duties in accordance with the Investment Management Agreement, the members of the Investment Committee and investment professionals of RCM may have conflicts in allocating their time and services among RCM, on the one hand, and the other managed investment vehicles, on the other hand. RCM, including members of its Investment Committee, may face conflicts in allocating investment opportunities between us and other investment vehicles affiliated with members of the Investment Committee that have overlapping investment objectives with ours. Although RCM, including members of the Investment Committee, and its affiliates that manage other investment portfolios will endeavor to allocate investment opportunities in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with its written allocation policies and procedures, it is possible that, in the future, we may not be given the opportunity to participate in investments made by investment funds managed by RCM or members of the Investment Committee given the requirements or application of such allocation policies and procedures or if such investment is prohibited by law.

We do not have an expectation to control the decision making in our portfolio companies, even though we may have a board seat or board observation rights. Because of this, we are subject to the risk that our portfolio companies will make business decisions with which we disagree or will incur risks or otherwise act in ways that do not maximize their value and serve our interests as minority debt and equity holders. Due to the lack of liquidity in our investments in these private companies, we may not be able to dispose of our investment in these portfolio companies as freely as we would like or at a valuation that is appropriate. As a result, a portfolio company may make decisions that would decrease the value of our portfolio holdings.

As a BDC, we are required to carry our investments at fair value as determined in good faith by our Board. Decreases in the fair values of our investments are recorded as unrealized depreciation. Any unrealized losses in our portfolio could be an indication of a portfolio company's inability to meet its debt repayment obligations to us with respect to the affected investments. This could result in realized losses in the future and ultimately in reductions of our income available for distribution in future periods.

We typically invest a substantial portion of our assets in small private companies. These private businesses may be thinly capitalized, unproven companies with risky technologies, products or services, may lack management depth, and may not have attained profitability. Because of the speculative nature and the lack of a public market for these investments, there is significantly greater risk of loss than is the case with securities traded on a public exchange. We expect that some of our investments will become worthless and that some will appear likely to become successful but will never realize their potential. We have historically been risk seeking rather than risk averse in our approach to our investments. Given the incentive compensation components of our arrangement with RCM under the Investment Management Agreement, RCM may have similar incentives to be risk seeking rather than risk averse in making its investment decisions. Even if our portfolio companies are able to develop commercially viable technologies, products or services, the market for those new technologies, products and services is likely to be highly competitive and rapidly changing. Commercial success is difficult to predict and the marketing efforts of the portfolio companies may not be successful.