Table of Contents

Exhibit 99.1

                    , 2013

Dear Newcastle Investment Corp. Stockholder:

We are pleased to inform you that on April 25, 2013, the board of directors of Newcastle Investment Corp. (“Newcastle”) declared the distribution of all the shares of common stock of New Residential Investment Corp. (“New Residential”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Newcastle, to Newcastle stockholders. New Residential holds or will hold prior to the distribution, directly or indirectly, certain of Newcastle’s residential mortgage related investments and other investments such as excess mortgage servicing rights, Agency and non-Agency residential mortgage backed securities, residential mortgage loans and consumer loans.

Upon the distribution, Newcastle stockholders will own 100% of the common stock of New Residential. Newcastle’s board of directors has determined upon careful review and consideration in accordance with the applicable standard review under Maryland law that creating New Residential is in the best interests of Newcastle.

The distribution of New Residential common stock will occur on May 15, 2013 by way of a taxable pro rata special dividend to Newcastle stockholders of record on the record date of the distribution. Each Newcastle stockholder will be entitled to receive one share of New Residential common stock for each share of Newcastle common stock held by such stockholder at the close of business on May 6, 2013, the record date of the distribution. The New Residential common stock will be issued in book-entry form only, which means that no physical stock certificates will be issued.

Stockholder approval of the distribution is not required, and you are not required to take any action to receive your New Residential common stock.

Following the distribution, you will own shares in both Newcastle and New Residential. The number of Newcastle shares you own will not change as a result of this distribution. Newcastle’s common stock will continue to trade on The New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “NCT.” New Residential has been approved to list its common stock on The New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “NRZ.”

The information statement, which is being mailed to all holders of Newcastle common stock on the record date for the distribution, describes the distribution in detail and contains important information about New Residential, its business, financial condition and operations. We urge you to read the information statement carefully.

We want to thank you for your continued support of Newcastle and we look forward to your future support of New Residential.

Sincerely,

Kenneth M. Riis

Chief Executive Officer

Table of Contents

                    , 2013

Dear Future New Residential Investment Corp. Stockholder:

It is our pleasure to welcome you as a stockholder of our company, New Residential Investment Corp. (“New Residential”). Following the separation of our company from Newcastle Investment Corp., we will be a newly listed public real estate investment trust primarily focused on investing in residential mortgage related assets. We will be externally managed by an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group (“Fortress”). Our goal is to drive strong risk-adjusted returns primarily through investments in residential mortgage related assets, such as excess mortgage servicing rights and Agency and non-Agency residential mortgage backed securities. We will generally target assets that either generate significant current cash flows or that have the potential for meaningful capital appreciation, or both. We will aim to generate attractive returns for our stockholders without excessive use of financial leverage. We also intend to capitalize on our manager’s relationship with Nationstar Mortgage LLC, which is majority-owned by Fortress funds managed by our manager, to source opportunities to acquire Excess MSRs.

We were formed as NIC MSR LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of Newcastle Investment Corp., in September 2011. We converted to a Delaware corporation and changed our name to New Residential Investment Corp. in December 2012.

New Residential has been approved to list its common stock on The New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “NRZ.”

We invite you to learn more about New Residential by reviewing the enclosed information statement. We urge you to read the information statement carefully. We look forward to our future and to your support as a holder of New Residential common stock.

Sincerely,

Kenneth M. Riis

Chief Executive Officer and President

Table of Contents

Information contained herein is subject to completion or amendment. A registration statement on Form 10 relating to these securities has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

Preliminary and Subject to Completion, dated April 29, 2013

INFORMATION STATEMENT

New Residential Investment Corp.

Common Stock

(Par Value, $0.01 Per Share)

This information statement is being furnished in connection with the distribution by Newcastle Investment Corp. (“Newcastle”) to its stockholders of the outstanding shares of common stock of New Residential Investment Corp. (“New Residential”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Newcastle. New Residential holds or will hold, directly or indirectly, certain of Newcastle’s residential mortgage related investments and other investments such as excess mortgage servicing rights, Agency and non-Agency residential mortgage backed securities, residential mortgage loans and consumer loans. To implement the distribution, Newcastle will distribute the shares of New Residential common stock on a pro rata basis.

For every share of common stock of Newcastle held of record by you as of the close of business on May 6, 2013, the record date for the distribution, you will receive one share of New Residential common stock. As discussed under “Our Separation from Newcastle—Market for Common Stock—Trading Between the Record Date and Distribution Date,” if you sell your shares of common stock of Newcastle in the “regular-way” market after the record date and before the separation, you also will be selling your right to receive shares of our common stock in connection with the separation. We expect the shares of New Residential common stock to be distributed by Newcastle to you on May 15, 2013. We refer to the date of the distribution of New Residential common stock as the “distribution date.”

No vote of Newcastle’s stockholders is required in connection with this distribution. Therefore, you are not being asked for a proxy, and you are requested not to send us a proxy, in connection with the separation. You do not need to pay any consideration, exchange or surrender your existing shares of common stock of Newcastle or take any other action to receive your shares of New Residential common stock.

There is no current trading market for New Residential common stock, although we expect that a limited market, commonly known as a “when-issued” trading market, will develop on or shortly before the record date for the distribution, and we expect “regular-way” trading of New Residential common stock to begin on the first trading day following the completion of the separation. New Residential has been approved to list its common stock on The New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “NRZ.”

New Residential intends to elect and qualify to be taxed as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our initial taxable year ending December 31, 2013. To assist it in qualifying as a REIT, among other purposes, stockholders will generally be restricted from owning more than 9.8% by value or number, whichever is more restrictive, of its outstanding shares of common stock, or 9.8% by value or number, whichever is more restrictive, of its outstanding shares of capital stock. In addition, New Residential’s certificate of incorporation contains various other restrictions on the ownership and transfer of its common stock. See “Description of Our Capital Stock—Restrictions on Ownership and Transfer of Our Capital Stock.”

New Residential is an emerging growth company as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.

In reviewing this information statement, you should carefully consider the matters described under the caption “Risk Factors” beginning on page 29.

Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved these securities or determined if this information statement is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

This information statement does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities.

This information statement was first mailed to Newcastle stockholders on or about                , 2013.

The date of this information statement is                , 2013.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Industry Data

Unless otherwise indicated, information contained in this information statement concerning the mortgage and mortgage servicing industry, including our general expectations and market position and market opportunity, is based on information from various sources (including government and industry publications, surveys, analyses, valuations and forecasts and our internal research), assumptions that we have made (which we believe are reasonable based on those data from such sources and other similar sources) and our knowledge of the markets. The projections, assumptions and estimates of our future performance and the future performance of the mortgage and mortgage servicing industry are necessarily subject to a high degree of uncertainty and risk due to a variety of factors, including those described under “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this information statement. These and other factors could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in the estimates included in this information statement.

Presentation of Information

Except as otherwise indicated or unless the context otherwise requires, the information included in this information statement including the consolidated financial statements of New Residential, assumes the completion of all the transactions referred to in this information statement in connection with the separation and distribution. Unless the context otherwise requires, any references in this information statement to “we,” “our,” “us” and the “Company” refer to New Residential Investment Corp. and its consolidated subsidiaries as in effect upon the completion of the distribution. References in this information statement to “Newcastle” generally refer to Newcastle Investment Corp. and its consolidated subsidiaries, including us, unless the context requires otherwise. All figures included in this information statement are as of December 31, 2012, unless stated otherwise.

Table of Contents

1

Table of Contents

2

Table of Contents

3

Table of Contents

4

Table of Contents

5

Table of Contents

6

Table of Contents

7

Table of Contents

8

Table of Contents

9

Table of Contents

10

Table of Contents

11

Table of Contents

12

Table of Contents

13

Table of Contents

14

Table of Contents

15

Table of Contents

16

Table of Contents

17

Table of Contents

18

Table of Contents

19

Table of Contents

20

Table of Contents

21

Table of Contents

22

Table of Contents

23

Table of Contents

24

Table of Contents

25

Table of Contents

26

Table of Contents

27

Table of Contents

28

Table of Contents

RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider the following risks and other information in this information statement in evaluating us and our common stock. Any of the following risks, as well as additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial, could materially and adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition. The risk factors generally have been separated into the following groups: risks related to our business, risks related to our Manager, risks related to the separation, risks related to the financial markets, risks related to our taxation as a REIT and risks related to our common stock.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS

We have no operating history as an independent company and may not be able to successfully operate our business strategy or generate sufficient revenue to make or sustain distributions to our stockholders. The financial information included in this information statement may not be indicative of the results we would have achieved as a separate stand-alone company and may not be a reliable indicator of our future performance or results.

We have no experience operating as an independent company and cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully operate our business or implement our operating policies and strategies as described in this information statement. Furthermore, we were formed in September 2011 and have a limited operating history. We completed our first investment in Excess MSRs in December 2011, and our Manager has extremely limited experience with transactions involving GSEs. The timing, terms, price and form of consideration that we and servicers pay in future transactions may vary meaningfully from prior transactions.

Once we commence operations as an independent company, there can be no assurance that we will be able to generate sufficient returns to pay our operating expenses and make satisfactory distributions to our stockholders, or any distributions at all. Our results of operations and our ability to make or sustain distributions to our stockholders depend on several factors, including the availability of opportunities to acquire attractive assets, the level and volatility of interest rates, the availability of adequate short- and long-term financing, conditions in the real estate market, the financial markets and economic conditions.

We did not operate as a separate, stand-alone company for any of the historical periods presented in the financial information included in this information statement, which has been derived from Newcastle’s historical financial statements. Therefore, the financial information in this information statement does not necessarily reflect what our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows would have been had we been a separate, stand-alone public company prior to the completion of the separation or what our results will be in the future. This is primarily a result of the following factors:

29

Table of Contents

The value of our Excess MSRs is based on various assumptions that could prove to be incorrect and could have a negative impact on our financial results.

When we invest in Excess MSRs, we base the price we pay and the rate of amortization of those assets on, among other things, our projection of the cash flows from the related pool of mortgage loans. We record Excess MSRs on our balance sheet at fair value, and we measure their fair value on a recurring basis. Our projections of the cash flow from Excess MSRs, and the determination of the fair value of Excess MSRs, are based on assumptions about various factors, including, but not limited to:

Our assumptions could differ materially from actual results. The use of different estimates or assumptions in connection with the valuation of these assets could produce materially different fair values for such assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. The ultimate realization of the value of Excess MSRs may be materially different than the fair values of such Excess MSRs as reflected in our consolidated statement of financial position as of any particular date.

Our expectation of prepayment speeds is a significant assumption underlying our cash flow projections. Prepayment speed is the measurement of how quickly borrowers pay down the UPB of their loans or how quickly loans are otherwise brought current, modified, liquidated or charged off. If prepayment speeds are significantly greater than expected, the carrying value of our Excess MSRs could exceed their estimated fair value. If the fair value of our Excess MSRs decreases, we would be required to record a non-cash charge, which would have a negative impact on our financial results. Furthermore, a significant increase in prepayment speeds could materially reduce the ultimate cash flows we receive from Excess MSRs, and we could ultimately receive substantially less than what we paid for such assets. Consequently, the price we pay to acquire Excess MSRs may prove to be too high.

The values of Excess MSRs are highly sensitive to changes in interest rates. Historically, the value of Excess MSRs has increased when interest rates rise and decreased when interest rates decline due to the effect of changes in interest rates on prepayment speeds. However, prepayment speeds could increase in spite of the current interest rate environment, as a result of a general economic recovery or other factors, which would reduce the value of our Excess MSRs.

Moreover, delinquency rates have a significant impact on the value of Excess MSRs. When delinquent loans are resolved through foreclosure, the UPB of such loans cease to be a part of the aggregate UPB of the serviced loan pool when the related properties are foreclosed on and liquidated. An increase in delinquencies will generally result in lower revenue because typically we will only collect on our Excess MSRs from GSEs or mortgage owners for performing loans. If delinquencies are significantly greater than expected, the estimated fair value of the Excess MSRs could be diminished. As a result, we could suffer a loss, which would have a negative impact on our financial results.

We will seek to enter into “recapture agreements” whereby we will receive a new Excess MSR with respect to a loan that was originated by the servicer and used to repay a loan underlying an Excess MSR that we previously acquired from that same servicer, or recapture. In lieu of receiving an Excess MSR with respect to the loan used to repay a prior loan, the servicer may supply a similar Excess MSR. We believe that such recapture arrangements will protect our returns in the event of a rise in voluntary prepayment rates. There are no assurances, however, that servicers will enter into such arrangements with us. If the servicer does not meet anticipated recapture targets, the servicing cash flow on a given pool could be significantly lower than projected,

30

Table of Contents

which could have a material adverse effect on the value of our Excess MSRs and consequently on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Our recapture target for each of our current recapture agreements is 20-35%, as stated in the table in Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements included herein.

We will rely heavily on mortgage servicers to achieve our investment objective and have no direct ability to influence their performance.

The value of our investments in Excess MSRs is dependent on the satisfactory performance of servicing obligations by the mortgage servicer. As a result, we could be materially and adversely affected if the servicer is unable to adequately service the underlying mortgage loans due to:

MSRs are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations and may be subject to various judicial and administrative decisions. If the servicer, actually or allegedly failed to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations, it could be terminated as the servicer, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Favorable ratings from third-party rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch are important to the conduct of a mortgage servicer’s loan servicing business, and a downgrade in a mortgage servicer’s ratings could have an adverse effect on us and the value of our Excess MSRs. Downgrades in a mortgage servicer’s servicer ratings could adversely affect their ability to finance servicing advances and maintain their status as an approved servicer by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Downgrades in servicer ratings could also lead to the early termination of existing advance facilities and affect the terms and availability of match funded advance facilities that a mortgage servicer may seek in the future. A mortgage servicer’s failure to maintain favorable or specified ratings may cause their termination as a servicer and may impair their ability to consummate future servicing transactions, which could have an adverse effect on our operations since we will rely heavily on mortgage servicers to achieve our investment objective and have no direct ability to influence their performance.

In addition, a bankruptcy by any mortgage servicer that services the mortgage loans underlying any Excess MSRs that we have acquired or may acquire in the future could result in:

31

Table of Contents

The duties and obligations of mortgage servicers are defined through contractual agreements, generally referred to as Servicing Guides in the case of GSEs, or Pooling and Servicing Agreements in the case of private-label securities (collectively, the “Servicing Guidelines”). Such Servicing Guidelines generally provide for the possibility for termination of the contractual rights of the servicer in the absolute discretion of the owner of the mortgages being serviced. In the event of such termination by a mortgage owner with respect to a particular servicer, the related Excess MSRs would under most circumstances lose all value on a going forward basis. It is expected that any termination by a mortgage owner of a servicer would take effect across all mortgages of such mortgage owner and would not be limited to a particular vintage or other subset of mortgages. Therefore, to the extent we make multiple investments relating to mortgages owned by the same owner and serviced by the same servicer, it is expected that all such investments would lose all their value in the event of the termination of the servicer by the mortgage owner. Any of the foregoing events might have a material and adverse effect on us.

We have significant counterparty concentration risk in Nationstar and Springleaf and are subject to other counterparty concentration and default risks.

We are not restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of our transactions with a few counterparties. Any loss suffered by us as a result of a counterparty defaulting, refusing to conduct business with us or imposing more onerous terms on us would also negatively affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

To date, all of our co-investments in Excess MSRs relate to loans serviced by Nationstar. If Nationstar is terminated as the servicer of some or all of these portfolios, or in the event that it files for bankruptcy, our expected returns on these investments would be severely impacted. In addition, all of the Non-Agency RMBS included in our initial portfolio is serviced by Nationstar. Furthermore, Nationstar has no obligation to offer us any future co-investment opportunity on the same terms as prior transactions, or at all, and we may not be able to find suitable counterparties other than Nationstar, from which to acquire Excess MSRs, which could impact our business strategy.

In addition, all our investments in consumer loans relate to loans which will be serviced by Springleaf. If Springleaf is terminated as the servicer of some or all of these portfolios, or in the event that it files for bankruptcy, our expected returns on these investments could be severely impacted.

Moreover, we will enter into repurchase agreements with a very limited number of counterparties, and possibly a single counterparty. If any of our counterparties elected not to roll our repurchase agreements, we may not be able to find a replacement counterparty, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Our risk-management processes may not accurately anticipate the impact of market stress or counterparty financial condition, and as a result, we may not take sufficient action to reduce our risks effectively. Although we will monitor our credit exposures, default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect, foresee or evaluate. In addition, concerns about, or a default by, one large participant could lead to significant liquidity problems for other participants, which may in turn expose us to significant losses.

In the event of a counterparty default, particularly a default by a major investment bank, we could incur material losses rapidly, and the resulting market impact of a major counterparty default could seriously harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. In the event that one of our counterparties becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy, our ability to eventually recover any losses suffered as a result of that counterparty’s default may be limited by the liquidity of the counterparty or the applicable legal regime governing the bankruptcy proceeding.

Counterparty risks increased in complexity and magnitude as a result of the insolvency of a number of major financial institutions (such as Lehman Brothers). For example, the consolidation and elimination of counterparties has increased our concentration of counterparty risk and decreased the universe of potential counterparties. In addition, counterparties have generally tightened their underwriting standards and increased their margin requirements for financing, which could negatively impacted us in several ways, including, decreasing the number of counterparties willing to provide financing to us, decreasing the overall amount of leverage available to us, and increasing the costs of borrowing.

32

Table of Contents

GSE initiatives and other actions may adversely affect returns from investments in Excess MSRs.

On January 17, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) announced that it has instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to study possible alternatives to the current residential mortgage servicing and compensation system used for single-family mortgage loans. It is too early to determine what the GSEs, including Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, may propose as alternatives to current servicing compensation practices, or when any such alternatives would become effective. Although we do not expect MSRs that have already been created to be subject to any changes implemented by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, it is possible that, because of the significant role of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in the secondary mortgage market, any changes they implement could become prevalent in the mortgage servicing industry generally. Other industry stakeholders or regulators may also implement or require changes in response to the perception that the current mortgage servicing practices and compensation do not appropriately serve broader housing policy objectives. These proposals are still evolving. To the extent the GSEs implement reforms that materially affect the market for conforming loans, there may be secondary effects on the subprime and Alt-A markets. These reforms may have a material adverse effect on the economics or performance of any Excess MSRs that we may acquire in the future.

Changes to the minimum servicing amount for GSE loans could occur at any time and could impact us in significantly negative ways that we are unable to predict or protect against.

Currently, when a loan is sold into the secondary market for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loans, the servicer is generally required to retain a minimum servicing amount (“MSA”) of 25 bps of the UPB for fixed rate mortgages. As has been widely publicized, in September 2011, the FHFA announced that a Joint Initiative on Mortgage Servicing Compensation was seeking public comment on two alternative mortgage servicing compensation structures detailed in a discussion paper. Changes to the MSA structure could significantly impact our business in negative ways that we cannot predict or protect against. For example, the elimination of a MSA could radically change the mortgage servicing industry and could severely limit the supply of Excess MSRs available for sale. In addition, a removal of, or reduction in, the MSA could significantly reduce the recapture rate on the affected loan portfolio, which would negatively affect the investment return on our Excess MSRs. We cannot predict whether any changes to current MSA rules will occur or what impact any changes will have on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Our ability to acquire and dispose of Excess MSRs may be subject to the receipt of third-party consents.

GSEs may require that we submit to costly or burdensome conditions as a prerequisite to their consent to an investment in Excess MSRs. GSE conditions may diminish or eliminate the investment potential of certain Excess MSRs by making such investments too expensive for us or by severely limiting the potential returns available from Excess MSRs. Moreover, we have not received and do not expect to receive any assurances from any GSEs that their conditions for the sale by us of any Excess MSRs will not change. Therefore, the potential costs, issues or restrictions associated with receiving such GSEs’ consent for any such dispositions by us cannot be determined with any certainty.

Our investments in Excess MSRs may involve complex or novel structures.

Our investments in Excess MSRs may involve complex or novel structures. It is possible that a GSE’s views on whether any such acquisition structure is appropriate or acceptable may not be known to us when we make an investment and may change from time to time for any reason or for no reason, even with respect to a completed investment. A GSE’s evolving posture toward an acquisition or disposition structure through which we invest in or dispose of Excess MSRs may cause such GSE to impose new conditions on our existing investments in Excess MSRs, including the owner’s ability to hold such Excess MSRs directly or indirectly through a grantor trust or other means. Such new conditions may be costly or burdensome and may diminish or eliminate the investment potential of the Excess MSRs that are already owned by us. Moreover, obtaining such consent may require us or our co-investment counterparties to agree to material structural or economic changes, as well as agree to

33

Table of Contents

indemnification or other terms that expose us to risks to which we have not previously been exposed and that could negatively affect our returns from our investments.

Many of our investments may be illiquid, and this lack of liquidity could significantly impede our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions or to realize the value at which such investments are carried if we are required to dispose of them.

The investments that we intend to make are generally illiquid. Illiquidity may result from the absence of an established market for the investments, as well as legal or contractual restrictions on their resale, refinancing or other disposition. Dispositions of investments may be subject to contractual and other limitations on transfer or other restrictions that would interfere with subsequent sales of such investments or adversely affect the terms that could be obtained upon any disposition thereof.

Excess MSRs are highly illiquid and subject to numerous restrictions on transfers. For example, the Servicing Guidelines of a mortgage owner generally require that holders of Excess MSRs obtain the mortgage owner’s prior approval of any change of direct ownership of such Excess MSRs. Such approval may be withheld for any reason or no reason in the discretion of the mortgage owner. Additionally, investments in Excess MSRs are a new type of transaction such that, prior to the date of this information statement, there have been extremely few investment products that pursue a similar investment strategy, and the risks associated with the transaction and structure are not fully known to buyers or sellers. As a result of the foregoing, there is some risk that we will be unable to locate a buyer at the time we wish to sell an Excess MSR. Additionally, there is some risk that we will be required to dispose of Excess MSRs either through an in-kind distribution or other liquidation vehicle, which will, in either case, provide little or no economic benefit to us, or a sale to a co-investor in the Excess MSR, which may be an affiliate. Accordingly, we cannot provide any assurance that we will obtain any return or any benefit of any kind from any disposition of Excess MSRs. We may not benefit from the full term of the assets and for the aforementioned reasons may not receive any benefits from the disposition, if any, of such assets.

In addition, the real estate related securities that we may purchase in connection with privately negotiated transactions may not be registered under the relevant securities laws, resulting in a prohibition against their transfer, sale, pledge or other disposition except in a transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of, or is otherwise in accordance with, those laws. There are also no established trading markets for a majority of our intended investments. Moreover, certain of our investments, including our investments in consumer loans and certain investments in Excess MSRs, are made indirectly through a vehicle that owns the underlying assets. Our ability to sell our interest may be contractually limited or prohibited. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be limited.

The real estate related securities we will hold upon completion of the separation and those we intend to invest in have historically been valued based primarily on third party quotations, which are subject to significant variability based on the liquidity and price transparency created by market trading activity. The ongoing dislocation in the trading markets has continued to reduce the trading for many real estate related securities, resulting in less transparent prices for those securities. Consequently, we expect it will be more difficult for us to sell many of our real estate related securities than it has been historically because, if we were to sell such assets, we would likely not have access to readily ascertainable market prices when establishing valuations of them. Moreover, currently there is a relatively low market demand for the vast majority of the types of assets that we hold, or will hold in the future, which may make it extremely difficult to sell our assets. If we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our illiquid investments quickly, we may realize significantly less than the amount at which we have previously valued these investments.

Market conditions could negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The market in which we operate is affected by a number of factors that are largely beyond our control but can nonetheless have a potentially significant, negative impact on us. These factors include, among other things:

34

Table of Contents

Changes in these factors are difficult to predict, and a change in one factor can affect other factors. For example, during 2007, increased default rates in the subprime mortgage market played a role in causing credit spreads to widen, reducing availability of credit on favorable terms, reducing liquidity and price transparency of real estate related assets, resulting in difficulty in obtaining accurate mark-to-market valuations, and causing a negative perception of the state of the real estate markets and of REITs generally. These conditions worsened during 2008, and intensified meaningfully during the fourth quarter of 2008 as a result of the global credit and liquidity crisis, resulting in extraordinarily challenging market conditions. Since then, market conditions have generally improved, but they could deteriorate in the future, including as a result of the pending mandatory reductions in federal spending during 2013.

The geographic distribution of the loans underlying, and collateral securing, certain of our investments subjects us to geographic real estate market risks, which could adversely affect the performance of our investments, our results of operations and financial condition.

The geographic distribution of the loans underlying, and collateral securing, our investments, including our Excess MSRs, Non-Agency RMBS and consumer loans, exposes us to risks associated with the real estate and commercial lending industry in general within the states and regions in which we hold significant investments. These risks include, without limitation: possible declines in the value of real estate; risks related to general and local economic conditions; possible lack of availability of mortgage funds; overbuilding; extended vacancies of properties; increases in competition, property taxes and operating expenses; changes in zoning laws; increased energy costs; unemployment; costs resulting from the clean-up of, and liability to third parties for damages resulting from, environmental problems; casualty or condemnation losses; uninsured damages from floods, earthquakes or other natural disasters; and changes in interest rates. As of December 31, 2012, 32.0% of the total unpaid principal amount of the residential mortgage loans underlying our Excess MSRs was secured by properties located in California and 10.1% was secured by properties located in Florida. As of December 31, 2012, 34.9% of the collateral securing our real estate securities was located in the Western U.S., 23.2% was located in the Southeastern U.S., 22.0% was located in the Northeastern U.S., 10.0% was located in the Midwestern U.S. and 9.9% was located in the Southwestern U.S. To the extent any of the foregoing risks arise in states and regions where we hold significant investments, the performance of our investments, our results of operations and our financial condition could suffer a material adverse effect.

We may invest in RMBS collateralized by subprime mortgage loans, which are subject to increased risks.

We may invest in RMBS backed by collateral pools of subprime residential mortgage loans. “Subprime” mortgage loans refer to mortgage loans that have been originated using underwriting standards that are less

35

Table of Contents

restrictive than the underwriting requirements used as standards for other first and junior lien mortgage loan purchase programs, such as the programs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These lower standards include mortgage loans made to borrowers having imperfect or impaired credit histories (including outstanding judgments or prior bankruptcies), mortgage loans where the amount of the loan at origination is 80% or more of the value of the mortgage property, mortgage loans made to borrowers with low credit scores, mortgage loans made to borrowers who have other debt that represents a large portion of their income and mortgage loans made to borrowers whose income is not required to be disclosed or verified. Due to economic conditions, including increased interest rates and lower home prices, as well as aggressive lending practices, subprime mortgage loans have in recent periods experienced increased rates of delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss, and they are likely to continue to experience delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss rates that are higher, and that may be substantially higher, than those experienced by mortgage loans underwritten in a more traditional manner. Thus, because of the higher delinquency rates and losses associated with subprime mortgage loans, the performance of RMBS backed by subprime mortgage loans in which we may invest could be correspondingly adversely affected, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

The value of our RMBS may be adversely affected by deficiencies in servicing and foreclosure practices, as well as related delays in the foreclosure process.

Allegations of deficiencies in servicing and foreclosure practices among several large sellers and servicers of residential mortgage loans that surfaced in 2010 raised various concerns relating to such practices, including the improper execution of the documents used in foreclosure proceedings (so-called “robo signing”), inadequate documentation of transfers and registrations of mortgages and assignments of loans, improper modifications of loans, violations of representations and warranties at the date of securitization and failure to enforce put-backs.

As a result of alleged deficiencies in foreclosure practices, a number of servicers temporarily suspended foreclosure proceedings beginning in the second half of 2010 while they evaluated their foreclosure practices. In late 2010, a group of state attorneys general and state bank and mortgage regulators representing nearly all 50 states and the District of Columbia, along with the U.S. Justice Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, began an investigation into foreclosure practices of banks and servicers. The investigations and lawsuits by several state attorneys general lead to a proposed settlement agreement in early February 2012 with five of the nation’s largest banks, pursuant to which the banks agreed to pay more than $25 billion to settle claims relating to improper foreclosure practices. The proposed settlement does not prohibit the states, the federal government, individuals or investors in RMBS from pursuing additional actions against the banks and servicers in the future.

The integrity of the servicing and foreclosure processes are critical to the value of the mortgage loan portfolios underlying our RMBS, and our financial results could be adversely affected by deficiencies in the conduct of those processes. For example, delays in the foreclosure process that have resulted from investigations into improper servicing practices may adversely affect the values of, and our losses on, our non-Agency RMBS. Foreclosure delays may also increase the administrative expenses of the securitization trusts for the non-Agency RMBS, thereby reducing the amount of funds available for distribution to investors. In addition, the subordinate classes of securities issued by the securitization trusts may continue to receive interest payments while the defaulted loans remain in the trusts, rather than absorbing the default losses. This may reduce the amount of credit support available for the senior classes we own, thus possibly adversely affecting these securities. Additionally, a substantial portion of the proposed $25 billion settlement is intended to be a “credit” to the banks and servicers for principal write-downs or reductions they may make to certain mortgages underlying RMBS. There remains considerable uncertainty as to how these principal reductions will work and what effect they will have on the value of related RMBS. As a result, there can be no assurance that any such principal reductions will not adversely affect the value of certain of our RMBS.

While we believe that the sellers and servicers would be in violation of their servicing contracts to the extent that they have improperly serviced mortgage loans or improperly executed documents in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings, or do not comply with the terms of servicing contracts when deciding whether to apply principal

36

Table of Contents

reductions, it may be difficult, expensive and time consuming for us to enforce our contractual rights. We continue to monitor and review the issues raised by the alleged improper foreclosure practices. While we cannot predict exactly how the servicing and foreclosure matters or the resulting litigation or settlement agreements will affect our business, there can be no assurance that these matters will not have an adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

The loans underlying the securities we invest in are subject to delinquency, foreclosure and loss, which could result in losses to us.

Mortgage backed securities are bonds or notes backed by loans. The ability of borrowers to repay these loans is dependent upon the income or assets of these borrowers. If a borrower has insufficient income or assets to repay these loans, it will default on its loan. Our investments in RMBS will be adversely affected by defaults under the loans underlying such securities. To the extent losses are realized on the loans underlying the securities in which we invest, we may not recover the amount invested in, or, in extreme cases, any of our investment in such securities.

Our investments in real estate related securities are subject to changes in credit spreads, which could adversely affect our ability to realize gains on the sale of such investments.

Real estate related securities are subject to changes in credit spreads. Credit spreads measure the yield demanded on securities by the market based on their credit relative to a specific benchmark.

Fixed rate securities are valued based on a market credit spread over the rate payable on fixed rate U.S. Treasuries of like maturity. Floating rate securities are valued based on a market credit spread over LIBOR and are affected similarly by changes in LIBOR spreads. Excessive supply of these securities combined with reduced demand will generally cause the market to require a higher yield on these securities, resulting in the use of a higher, or “wider,” spread over the benchmark rate to value such securities. Under such conditions, the value of our real estate related securities portfolios would tend to decline. Conversely, if the spread used to value such securities were to decrease, or “tighten,” the value of our real estate related securities portfolio would tend to increase. Such changes in the market value of our real estate securities portfolios may affect our net equity, net income or cash flow directly through their impact on unrealized gains or losses on available-for-sale securities, and therefore our ability to realize gains on such securities, or indirectly through their impact on our ability to borrow and access capital. During 2008 through the first quarter of 2009, credit spreads widened substantially. Widening credit spreads could cause the net unrealized gains on our securities and derivatives, recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income or retained earnings, and therefore our book value per share, to decrease and result in net losses.

Prepayment rates on the mortgage loans underlying our real estate related securities may adversely affect our profitability.

In general, the mortgages collateralizing our real estate related securities may be prepaid at any time without penalty. Prepayments on our real estate related securities result when homeowners/mortgagees satisfy (i.e., pay off) the mortgage upon selling or refinancing their mortgaged property. When we acquire a particular security, we anticipate that the underlying mortgage loans will prepay at a projected rate which, together with expected coupon income, provides us with an expected yield on such securities. If we purchase assets at a premium to par value, and borrowers prepay their mortgage loans faster than expected, the corresponding prepayments on the real estate related security may reduce the expected yield on such securities because we will have to amortize the related premium on an accelerated basis. Conversely, if we purchase assets at a discount to par value, when borrowers prepay their mortgage loans slower than expected, the decrease in corresponding prepayments on the real estate related security may reduce the expected yield on such securities because we will not be able to accrete the related discount as quickly as originally anticipated. Prepayment rates on loans are influenced by changes in mortgage and market interest rates and a variety of economic, geographic and other factors, all of

37

Table of Contents

which are beyond our control. Consequently, such prepayment rates cannot be predicted with certainty and no strategy can completely insulate us from prepayment or other such risks. In periods of declining interest rates, prepayment rates on mortgage loans generally increase. If general interest rates decline at the same time, the proceeds of such prepayments received during such periods are likely to be reinvested by us in assets yielding less than the yields on the assets that were prepaid. In addition, the market value of our real estate related securities may, because of the risk of prepayment, benefit less than other fixed-income securities from declining interest rates.

With respect to Agency RMBS, we intend to purchase securities that have a higher coupon rate than the prevailing market interest rates. In exchange for a higher coupon rate, we would then pay a premium over par value to acquire these securities. In accordance with GAAP, we will amortize the premiums on our Agency RMBS over the life of the related securities. If the mortgage loans securing these securities prepay at a more rapid rate than anticipated, we will have to amortize our premiums on an accelerated basis which may adversely affect our profitability. Defaults on Agency RMBS typically have the same effect as prepayments because of the underlying Agency guarantee.

Prepayments, which are the primary feature of mortgage backed securities that distinguish them from other types of bonds, are difficult to predict and can vary significantly over time. As the holder of the security, on a monthly basis, we receive a payment equal to a portion of our investment principal in a particular security as the underlying mortgages are prepaid. In general, on the date each month that principal prepayments are announced (i.e., factor day), the value of our real estate related security pledged as collateral under our repurchase agreements is reduced by the amount of the prepaid principal and, as a result, our lenders will typically initiate a margin call requiring the pledge of additional collateral or cash, in an amount equal to such prepaid principal, in order to re-establish the required ratio of borrowing to collateral value under such repurchase agreements. Accordingly, with respect to our Agency RMBS, the announcement on factor day of principal prepayments is in advance of our receipt of the related scheduled payment, thereby creating a short-term receivable for us in the amount of any such principal prepayments; however, under our repurchase agreements, we may receive a margin call relating to the related reduction in value of our Agency RMBS and, prior to receipt of this short-term receivable, be required to post additional collateral or cash in the amount of the principal prepayment on or about factor day, which would reduce our liquidity during the period in which the short-term receivable is outstanding. As a result, in order to meet any such margin calls, we could be forced to sell assets in order to maintain liquidity. Forced sales under adverse market conditions may result in lower sales prices than ordinary market sales made in the normal course of business. If our real estate related securities were liquidated at prices below our amortized cost (i.e., the cost basis) of such assets, we would incur losses, which could adversely affect our earnings. In addition, in order to continue to earn a return on this prepaid principal, we must reinvest it in additional real estate related securities or other assets; however, if interest rates decline, we may earn a lower return on our new investments as compared to the real estate related securities that prepay.

Prepayments may have a negative impact on our financial results, the effects of which depend on, among other things, the timing and amount of the prepayment delay on our Agency RMBS, the amount of unamortized premium on our real estate related securities, the rate at which prepayments are made on our non-Agency RMBS, the reinvestment lag and the availability of suitable reinvestment opportunities.

Our investments in RMBS may be subject to significant impairment charges, which would adversely affect our results of operations.

We will be required to periodically evaluate our investments for impairment indicators. The value of an investment is impaired when our analysis indicates that, with respect to a security, it is probable that the value of the security is other than temporarily impaired. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based on a variety of factors depending upon the nature of the investment and the manner in which the income related to such investment was calculated for purposes of our financial statements. If we determine that an

38

Table of Contents

impairment has occurred, we are required to make an adjustment to the net carrying value of the investment, which would adversely affect our results of operations in the applicable period and thereby adversely affect our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

The lenders under our repurchase agreements may elect not to extend financing to us, which could quickly and seriously impair our liquidity.

We intend to finance a meaningful portion of our investments in RMBS with repurchase agreements, which are short-term financing arrangements. Under the terms of these agreements, we will sell a security to a counterparty for a specified price and concurrently agree to repurchase the same security from our counterparty at a later date for a higher specified price. During the term of the repurchase agreement—which can be as short as 30 days—the counterparty will make funds available to us and hold the security as collateral. Our counterparties can also require us to post additional margin as collateral at any time during the term of the agreement. When the term of a repurchase agreement ends, we will be required to repurchase the security for the specified repurchase price, with the difference between the sale and repurchase prices serving as the equivalent of paying interest to the counterparty in return for extending financing to us. If we want to continue to finance the security with a repurchase agreement, we ask the counterparty to extend—or “roll”—the repurchase agreement for another term.

Our counterparties will not be required to roll our repurchase agreements upon the expiration of their stated terms, which subjects us to a number of risks. Counterparties electing to roll our repurchase agreements, which Newcastle has experienced recently and we may experience in the future, may charge higher spread and impose more onerous terms upon us, including the requirement that we post additional margin as collateral. More significantly, if a repurchase agreement counterparty elects not to extend our financing, we would be required to pay the counterparty the full repurchase price on the maturity date and find an alternate source of financing. Alternate sources of financing may be more expensive, contain more onerous terms or simply may not be available. If we were unable to pay the repurchase price for any security financed with a repurchase agreement, the counterparty has the right to sell the underlying security being held as collateral and require us to compensate for any shortfall between the value of our obligation to the counterparty and the amount for which the collateral was sold (which may be a significantly discounted price). As of April 22, 2013, we had outstanding repurchase agreements with an aggregate face amount of approximately $302.0 million to finance non-Agency RMBS and approximately $1.0 billion to finance Agency RMBS. Moreover, all of our repurchase agreement obligations will be with a very limited number of counterparties, and possibly a single counterparty. If any of our counterparties elected not to roll our repurchase agreements, we may not be able to find a replacement counterparty in a timely manner.

We may not be able to finance our investments on attractive terms or at all, and financing for Excess MSRs may be particularly difficult or impossible to obtain.

The ability to finance investments with securitizations or other long-term non-recourse financing not subject to margin requirements has been impaired since 2007 as a result of market conditions. In addition, it may be particularly challenging to securitize our investments in consumer loans, given that consumer loans are generally riskier than mortgage financing. These conditions make it highly likely that we will have to use less efficient forms of financing for any new investments, which will likely require a larger portion of our cash flows to be put toward making the initial investment and thereby reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders and funds available for operations and investments, and which will also likely require us to assume higher levels of risk when financing our investments. In addition, there is no established market for financing of investments in Excess MSRs, and it is possible that one will not develop for a variety of reasons, such as the challenges with perfecting security interests in the underlying collateral.

As non-recourse long-term financing structures become available to us and are utilized, such structures expose us to risks which could result in losses to us.

We may use securitization and other non-recourse long-term financing for our investments to the extent available. In such structures, our lenders typically would have only a claim against the assets included in the

39

Table of Contents

securitizations rather than a general claim against us as an entity. Prior to any such financing, we would seek to finance our investments with relatively short-term facilities until a sufficient portfolio is accumulated. As a result, we would be subject to the risk that we would not be able to acquire, during the period that any short-term facilities are available, sufficient eligible assets or securities to maximize the efficiency of a securitization. We also bear the risk that we would not be able to obtain new short-term facilities or would not be able to renew any short-term facilities after they expire should we need more time to seek and acquire sufficient eligible assets or securities for a securitization. In addition, conditions in the capital markets may make the issuance of any such securitization less attractive to us even when we do have sufficient eligible assets or securities. While we would intend to retain the unrated equity component of securitizations and, therefore, still have exposure to any investments included in such securitizations, our inability to enter into such securitizations may increase our overall exposure to risks associated with direct ownership of such investments, including the risk of default. Our inability to refinance any short-term facilities would also increase our risk because borrowings thereunder would likely be recourse to us as an entity. If we are unable to obtain and renew short-term facilities or to consummate securitizations to finance our investments on a long-term basis, we may be required to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at an inopportune time or price.

Investing in the consumer loan sector represents a new category of investment for us and Newcastle, and a failure to successfully manage the risks associated with this new category of investment could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.

We recently completed an investment in the consumer loan sector, which represents a new category of investment for us and Newcastle. Although many of the risks applicable to consumer loans are also applicable to residential real estate loans, and thus the type of risks that we have experience managing, there are nevertheless substantial risks and uncertainties associated with engaging in a new category of investment. There may be factors that affect the consumer loan investment sector with which we are not as familiar compared to our existing categories of investment. Moreover, our underwriting assumptions for these investments may prove to be materially incorrect. It is also possible that the addition of consumer loans to our investment portfolio could divert our Manager’s time away from our other investments. Furthermore, external factors, such as compliance with regulations, may also impact our ability to succeed in the consumer loan investment sector. Failure to successfully manage these risks could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.

The consumer loans underlying our investments are subject to delinquency and loss, which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

The ability of borrowers to repay the consumer loans underlying our investments may be adversely affected by numerous personal factors, including unemployment, divorce, major medical expenses or personal bankruptcy. General factors, including an economic downturn, high energy costs or acts of God or terrorism, may also impact upon the financial stability of borrowers and impair their ability or willingness to repay the consumer loans in our investment portfolio. In the event of any default under a loan in the consumer loan portfolios in which we invest, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral securing the loan, if any, and the principal and accrued interest of the loan. In addition, our investments in consumer loans may entail greater risk than our investments in residential real estate loans, particularly in the case of consumer loans that are unsecured or secured by assets that depreciate rapidly. In such cases, repossessed collateral for a defaulted consumer loan may not provide an adequate source of repayment for the outstanding loan and the remaining deficiency often does not warrant further substantial collection efforts against the borrower. There can be no guarantee that we will not suffer unexpected losses on our investments as a result of the factors set out above, which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

40

Table of Contents

The servicer of the loans underlying our consumer loan portfolio may not be able to accurately track the default status of senior lien loans in instances where our consumer loan investments are secured by second or third liens on real estate.

A portion of our investments in consumer loans are secured by second and third liens on real estate. When we hold the second or third lien another creditor or creditors, as applicable, holds the first and/or second, as applicable, lien on the real estate that is the subject of the security. In these situations our second or third lien is subordinate in right of payment to the first and/or second, as applicable, holder’s right to receive payment. Moreover, as the servicer of the loans underlying our consumer loan portfolio is not able to track the default status of a senior lien loan in instances where we do not hold the related first mortgage, the value of the second or third lien loans in our portfolio may be lower than our records indicate.

The consumer loan investment sector is subject to various initiatives on the part of advocacy groups and extensive regulation and supervision under federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, which could interfere with the focus of our investments and have a negative impact on our financial results.

In recent years consumer advocacy groups and some media reports have advocated governmental action to prohibit or place severe restrictions on the types of short-term consumer loans that underlie our investments. Such consumer advocacy groups and media reports generally focus on the Annual Percentage Rate to a consumer for this type of loan, which is compared unfavorably to the interest typically charged by banks to consumers with top-tier credit histories. The fees charged on the consumer loans in the portfolio in which we have invested may be perceived as controversial by those who do not focus on the credit risk and high transaction costs typically associated with this type of investment. If the negative characterization of these types of loans becomes increasingly accepted by consumers, demand for the consumer loan products in which we have invested could significantly decrease. Additionally, if the negative characterization of these types of loans is accepted by legislators and regulators, we could become subject to more restrictive laws and regulations in the area.

In addition, we are, or may become, subject to federal, state and local laws, regulations, or regulatory policies and practices, including the Dodd-Frank Act (which, among other things, established the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau with broad authority to regulate and examine financial institutions), which may, amongst other things, limit the amount of interest or fees allowed to be charged on the consumer loans underlying our investments, or the number of consumer loans that customers may receive or have outstanding. The operation of existing or future laws, ordinances and regulations could interfere with the focus of our investments which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

Our determination of how much leverage to apply to our investments may adversely affect our return on our investments and may reduce cash available for distribution.

We may leverage our assets through a variety of borrowings. Our investment guidelines do not limit the amount of leverage we may incur with respect to any specific asset or pool of assets. The return we are able to earn on our investments and cash available for distribution to our stockholders may be significantly reduced due to changes in market conditions, which may cause the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income that can be derived from our assets.

We may not match fund certain of our investments, which may increase the risks associated with these investments.

When available, a match funding strategy mitigates the risk of not being able to refinance an investment on favorable terms or at all. However, our Manager may elect for us to bear a level of refinancing risk on a short-term or longer-term basis, as in the case of investments financed with repurchase agreements, when, based on its analysis, our Manager determines that bearing such risk is advisable or unavoidable (which we expect to be the case generally with respect to the Agency RMBS in which we invest). In addition, we may be unable, as a result

41

Table of Contents

of conditions in the credit markets, to match fund our investments. For example, non-recourse term financing not subject to margin requirements was generally not available or economical for the past three years and is currently still difficult to obtain, which impairs our ability to match fund our investments. Moreover, we may not be able to enter into interest rate swaps. A decision not to, or the inability to, match fund certain investments exposes us to additional risks.

Furthermore, we anticipate that, in most cases, for any period during which our floating rate assets are not match funded with respect to maturity, the income from such assets may respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Because of this dynamic, interest income from such investments may rise more slowly than the related interest expense, with a consequent decrease in our net income. Interest rate fluctuations resulting in our interest expense exceeding interest income would result in operating losses for us from these investments.

Accordingly, if we do not or are unable to match fund our investments with respect to maturities and interest rates, we will be exposed to the risk that we may not be able to finance or refinance our investments on economically favorable terms or may have to liquidate assets at a loss.

Interest rate fluctuations and shifts in the yield curve may cause losses.

Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political considerations and other factors beyond our control. Our primary interest rate exposures relate to our investments in Excess MSRs, RMBS, consumer loans and any floating rate debt obligations that we may incur. Changes in interest rates, including changes in expected interest rates or “yield curves,” affect our business in a number of ways. Changes in the general level of interest rates can affect our net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income earned on our interest-earning assets and the interest expense incurred in connection with our interest-bearing liabilities and hedges. Changes in the level of interest rates also can affect, among other things, our ability to acquire real estate related securities at attractive prices, the value of our real estate related securities and derivatives and our ability to realize gains from the sale of such assets. We expect to utilize hedging transactions to protect our positions from interest rate fluctuations, but as a result of current market conditions we face significant obstacles to entering into new hedging transactions. As a result, we may not be able to protect new investments from interest rate fluctuations, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

In the event of a significant rising interest rate environment and/or economic downturn, loan and collateral defaults may increase and result in credit losses that would adversely affect our liquidity and operating results. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political conditions, and other factors beyond our control.

Our ability to execute our business strategy, particularly the growth of our investment portfolio, depends to a significant degree on our ability to obtain additional capital. Our financing strategy for our real estate related securities is dependent on our ability to place the match funded debt we use to finance our investments at rates that provide a positive net spread. If spreads for such liabilities widen or if demand for such liabilities ceases to exist, then our ability to execute future financings will be severely restricted.

Interest rate changes may also impact our net book value as our real estate related securities and hedge derivatives are marked to market each quarter. Debt obligations are not marked to market. Generally, as interest rates increase, the value of our fixed rate securities decreases, which will decrease the book value of our equity.

Furthermore, shifts in the U.S. Treasury yield curve reflecting an increase in interest rates would also affect the yield required on our real estate related securities and therefore their value. For example, increasing interest rates would reduce the value of the fixed rate assets we hold at the time because the higher yields required by increased interest rates result in lower market prices on existing fixed rate assets in order to adjust the yield

42

Table of Contents

upward to meet the market, and vice versa. This would have similar effects on our real estate related securities portfolio and our financial position and operations to a change in interest rates generally.

Any hedging transactions that we enter into may limit our gains or result in losses.

We may use, when feasible and appropriate, derivatives to hedge a portion of our interest rate exposure, and this approach has certain risks, including the risk that losses on a hedge position will reduce the cash available for distribution to stockholders and that such losses may exceed the amount invested in such instruments. We have adopted a general policy with respect to the use of derivatives, which generally allows us to use derivatives where appropriate, but does not set forth specific policies and procedures or require that we hedge any specific amount of risk. From time to time, we may use derivative instruments, including forwards, futures, swaps and options, in our risk management strategy to limit the effects of changes in interest rates on our operations. A hedge may not be effective in eliminating all of the risks inherent in any particular position. Our profitability may be adversely affected during any period as a result of the use of derivatives.

There are limits to the ability of any hedging strategy to protect us completely against interest rate risks. When rates change, we expect the gain or loss on derivatives to be offset by a related but inverse change in the value of any items that we hedge. We cannot assure you, however, that our use of derivatives will offset the risks related to changes in interest rates. We cannot assure you that our hedging strategy and the derivatives that we use will adequately offset the risk of interest rate volatility or that our hedging transactions will not result in losses. In addition, our hedging strategy may limit our flexibility by causing us to refrain from taking certain actions that would be potentially profitable but would cause adverse consequences under the terms of our hedging arrangements.

The REIT provisions of the Code limit our ability to hedge. In managing our hedge instruments, we consider the effect of the expected hedging income on the REIT qualification tests that limit the amount of gross income that a REIT may receive from hedging. We need to carefully monitor, and may have to limit, our hedging strategy to assure that we do not realize hedging income, or hold hedges having a value, in excess of the amounts that would cause us to fail the REIT gross income and asset tests.

Accounting for derivatives under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) is extremely complicated. Any failure by us to account for our derivatives properly in accordance with GAAP in our financial statements could adversely affect our earnings.

Maintenance of our 1940 Act exemption imposes limits on our operations.

We intend to conduct our operations in reliance on an exemption from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act. The assets that we may acquire, therefore, are limited by the provisions of the 1940 Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the 1940 Act.

We intend to conduct our operations so that we may rely upon the exemption from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. We expect to rely on guidance published by the SEC or its staff or on our analyses of such guidance to determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate related assets. To the extent that the SEC or its staff publishes new or different guidance with respect to these matters, we may be required to adjust our strategy and portfolio composition accordingly. In addition, we may be limited in our ability to make certain investments and these limitations could result in our holding assets that we might wish to sell or selling assets we might wish to hold. In addition, we could, among other things, be required either (a) to change the manner in which we conduct our operations in order to maintain our exemption from registration as an investment company or (b) to register as an investment company, either of which could adversely affect us and the market price for our stock.

In August 2011, the SEC issued a concept release pursuant to which they solicited public comments on a wide range of issues relating to companies engaged in the business of acquiring mortgages and mortgage-related

43

Table of Contents

instruments and that rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. The SEC solicited views about the application of the 1940 Act to mortgage REITs and suggestions on the steps that the SEC should take to provide greater clarity, consistency or regulatory certainty with respect to Section 3(c)(5)(C). The SEC noted that in light of the evolution of mortgage REITs and the development of new and complex mortgage-related instruments, the SEC was reviewing interpretive issues under Section 3(c)(5)(C) and the sufficiency of SEC guidance pursuant to which such companies make judgments regarding their qualification under Section 3(c)(5)(C). The SEC sought comments on topics including the operation of mortgage REITs and their role in the mortgage markets; the similarities and differences between mortgage REITs and investment companies, the nature of the assets that qualify for purposes of the exemption, the sufficiency of the SEC’s guidance with respect to such assets, types of assets where further guidance may be needed and whether the existing asset qualification tests are appropriate; and whether mortgage REITs should be regulated in a manner similar to investment companies. The SEC requested comments on the concept release by November 7, 2011. The concept release and the public comments thereto have not yet resulted in SEC rulemaking or interpretative guidance and we cannot predict what form any such rulemaking or interpretive guidance may take. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of REITs, or guidance from the SEC or its staff regarding these exemptions, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If the SEC takes action that could result in our failure to maintain an exception or exemption from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (a) change the manner in which we conduct our operations in order to maintain our exemption from registration 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 have a material adverse effect on us and the market price of our securities. If we were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, we would become subject 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 1940 Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, our ability to make distributions and other matters. Maintenance of our exemption under the 1940 Act generally limits the amount of our investments in non-real estate related assets to no more than 20% of our total assets. To the extent we acquire significant non-real estate related assets in the future, in order to maintain our exemption under the 1940 Act, we may need to offset those acquisitions with additional qualifying assets which may not generate risk-adjusted returns as attractive as those generated by the non-real estate related assets.

Rapid changes in the values of assets that we hold may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or our exemption from the 1940 Act.

If the market value or income potential of qualifying assets for purposes of our qualification as a REIT or our exemption from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act declines as a result of increased interest rates, changes in prepayment rates or other factors, we may need to increase our investments in qualifying assets and/or liquidate our non-qualifying assets to maintain our REIT qualification or our exemption from registration under the 1940 Act. If the decline in market values or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish. This difficulty may be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of any non-qualifying assets we may own. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent the intent to maintain our qualification as a REIT and exemption from registration under the 1940 Act.

We are subject to significant competition, and we may not compete successfully.

We are subject to significant competition in seeking investments. We compete with other companies, including other REITs, insurance companies and other investors, including funds and companies affiliated with our Manager. Some of our competitors have greater resources than we possess or have greater access to capital or various types of financing structures than are available to us, and we may not be able to compete successfully for investments or provide attractive investment returns relative to our competitors. These competitors may be willing to accept lower returns on their investments and, as a result, our profit margins could be adversely affected. Furthermore, competition for investments that are suitable for us may lead to the returns available from

44

Table of Contents

such investments decreasing, which may further limit our ability to generate our desired returns. We cannot assure you that other companies will not be formed that compete with us for investments or otherwise pursue investment strategies similar to ours or that we will be able to complete successfully against any such companies.

Furthermore, we do not intend to build a mortgage servicing platform. Therefore, we may not be an attractive buyer for those sellers of MSRs that prefer to sell MSRs and their mortgage servicing platform in a single transaction. Since our business model does not currently include acquiring and running servicing platforms, to engage in a bid for such a business we would need to find a servicer to acquire and run the platform or we would need to incur additional costs to shut down the acquired servicing platform. The need to work with a servicer in these situations increases the complexity of such potential acquisitions, and Nationstar may be unwilling or unable to act as servicer or subservicer on any Excess MSRs acquisition we want to execute. The complexity of these transactions and the additional costs incurred by us if we were to execute future acquisitions of this type could adversely affect our future operating results.

There is not anticipated to be an active market for most of the assets in which we will invest.

There is not anticipated to be an active market for most of the assets in which we will invest. In the absence of market comparisons, we will use other pricing methodologies, including, for example, models based on assumptions regarding expected trends, historical trends following market conditions believed to be comparable to the then current market conditions and other factors believed at the time to be likely to influence the potential resale price of, or the potential cash flows derived from, an investment. Such methodologies may not prove to be accurate and any inability to accurately price assets may result in adverse consequences for us. A valuation is only an estimate of value and is not a precise measure of realizable value. Ultimate realization of the market value of a private asset depends to a great extent on economic and other conditions beyond our control. Further, valuations do not necessarily represent the price at which a private investment would sell since market prices of private investments can only be determined by negotiation between a willing buyer and seller. If we were to liquidate a particular private investment, the realized value may be more than or less than the valuation of such asset as carried on our books.

Changes in accounting rules could occur at any time and could impact us in significantly negative ways that we are unable to predict or protect against.

As has been widely publicized, the SEC, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) and other regulatory bodies that establish the accounting rules applicable to us have recently proposed or enacted a wide array of changes to accounting rules. Moreover, in the future these regulators may propose additional changes that we do not currently anticipate. Changes to accounting rules that apply to us could significantly impact our business or our reported financial performance in negative ways that we cannot predict or protect against. We cannot predict whether any changes to current accounting rules will occur or what impact any codified changes will have on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

A prolonged economic slowdown, a lengthy or severe recession, or declining real estate values could harm our operations.

We believe the risks associated with our business are more severe during periods similar to those we recently experienced in which an economic slowdown or recession is accompanied by declining real estate values. Declining real estate values generally reduce the level of new mortgage loan originations, since borrowers often use increases in the value of their existing properties to support the purchase of, or investment in, additional properties. Borrowers may also be less able to pay principal and interest on the loans underlying our securities and our Excess MSRs, if the real estate economy weakens. Further, declining real estate values significantly increase the likelihood that we will incur losses on our securities in the event of default because the value of our collateral may be insufficient to cover our basis. Any sustained period of increased payment delinquencies,

45

Table of Contents

foreclosures or losses could adversely affect our net interest income from the assets in our portfolio, which would significantly harm our revenues, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, business prospects and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Compliance with changing regulation of corporate governance and public disclosure has and will continue to result in increased compliance costs and pose challenges for our management team.

Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on us and, more generally, the financial services and mortgage industries. Additionally, we cannot predict whether there will be additional proposed laws or reforms that would affect us, whether or when such changes may be adopted, how such changes may be interpreted and enforced or how such changes may affect us. However, the costs of complying with any additional laws or regulations could have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

As has been widely publicized, the recent market conditions have resulted in a number of financial institutions recording an unprecedented amount of impairment charges, and we were also affected by these conditions. These challenging conditions have reduced the market trading activity for many real estate securities, resulting in less liquid markets for those securities.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR MANAGER

We are dependent on our Manager and may not find a suitable replacement if our Manager terminates the Management Agreement.

We have no employees. Our officers and other individuals who perform services for us are employees of our Manager. We are completely reliant on our Manager, which has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and strategies, to conduct our business. We are subject to the risk that our Manager will terminate the Management Agreement and that we will not be able to find a suitable replacement for our Manager in a timely manner, at a reasonable cost or at all. Furthermore, we are dependent on the services of certain key employees of our Manager whose compensation is partially or entirely dependent upon the amount of incentive or management compensation earned by our Manager and whose continued service is not guaranteed, and the loss of such services could adversely affect our operations.

There are conflicts of interest in our relationship with our Manager.

Our Management Agreement with our Manager was not negotiated at arm’s-length, and its terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

There are conflicts of interest inherent in our relationship with our Manager insofar as our Manager and its affiliates—including investment funds, private investment funds, or businesses managed by our Manager, including Newcastle, Nationstar and Springleaf—invest in real estate related securities, consumer loans and Excess MSRs and whose investment objectives overlap with our investment objectives. Certain investments appropriate for us may also be appropriate for one or more of these other investment vehicles. Members of our board of directors and employees of our Manager who are our officers may serve as officers and/or directors of these other entities. For example, after the distribution, we will have some of the same directors and officers as Newcastle. Although we have the same Manager, we may compete with entities affiliated with our Manager or Fortress, including Newcastle, for certain target assets. From time to time, affiliates of Fortress may seek to acquire the same or similar types of assets that we may seek to acquire. These affiliates currently have meaningful purchasing capacity, which may change over time depending upon a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, available equity capital and debt financing, market conditions and cash on hand. For example,

46

Table of Contents

Fortress has a fund primarily focused on investments in Excess MSRs with approximately $600 million in capital commitments. Fortress funds generally have a fee structure similar to ours, but the fees actually paid will vary depending on the size, terms and performance of each fund.

Our Management Agreement with our Manager generally does not limit or restrict our Manager or its affiliates from engaging in any business or managing other pooled investment vehicles that invest in investments that meet our investment objectives. Our Manager intends to engage in additional real estate related management and real estate and other investment opportunities in the future, which may compete with us for investments or result in a change in our current investment strategy. In addition, our certificate of incorporation provides that if Newcastle or Fortress or any of their officers, directors or employees acquire knowledge of a potential transaction that could be a corporate opportunity, they have no duty, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to offer such corporate opportunity to us, our stockholders or our affiliates. In the event that any of our directors and officers who is also a director, officer or employee of Newcastle or Fortress acquires knowledge of a corporate opportunity or is offered a corporate opportunity, provided that this knowledge was not acquired solely in such person’s capacity as a director or officer of New Residential and such person acts in good faith, then to the fullest extent permitted by law such person is deemed to have fully satisfied such person’s fiduciary duties owed to us and is not liable to us if Newcastle or Fortress, or their affiliates, pursues or acquires the corporate opportunity or if such person did not present the corporate opportunity to us.

The ability of our Manager and its officers and employees to engage in other business activities, subject to the terms of our Management Agreement with our Manager, may reduce the amount of time our Manager, its officers or other employees spend managing us. In addition, we may engage (subject to our investment guidelines) in material transactions with our Manager or another entity managed by our Manager or one of its affiliates, including Newcastle, Nationstar and Springleaf, which may include, but are not limited to, certain financing arrangements, purchases of debt, co-investments in Excess MSRs, consumer loans, servicing advances and other assets that present an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. It is possible that actual, potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to investor dissatisfaction, litigation 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, actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Regulatory scrutiny of, or litigation in connection with, conflicts of interest could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, which could materially adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including causing an inability to raise additional funds, a reluctance of counterparties to do business with us, a decrease in the prices of our equity securities and a resulting increased risk of litigation and regulatory enforcement actions.

The management compensation structure that we have agreed to with our Manager, as well as compensation arrangements that we may enter into with our Manager in the future (in connection with new lines of business or other activities), may incentivize our Manager to invest in high risk investments. In addition to its management fee, our Manager is currently entitled to receive incentive compensation. In evaluating investments and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn incentive compensation may lead our Manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of such measures at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, in order to achieve higher incentive compensation. Investments with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative than lower-yielding investments. Moreover, because our Manager receives compensation in the form of options in connection with the completion of our common equity offerings, our Manager may be incentivized to cause us to issue additional common stock, which could be dilutive to existing stockholders.

It would be difficult and costly to terminate our Management Agreement with our Manager.

It would be difficult and costly for us to terminate our Management Agreement with our Manager. The Management Agreement may only be terminated annually upon (i) the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors, or by a vote of the holders of a simple majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock, that there has been unsatisfactory performance by our Manager that is materially detrimental to us or (ii) a determination by a simple majority of our independent directors that the management fee payable to

47

Table of Contents

our Manager is not fair, subject to our Manager’s right to prevent such a termination by accepting a mutually acceptable reduction of fees. Our Manager will be provided 60 days’ prior notice of any termination and will be paid a termination fee equal to the amount of the management fee earned by the Manager during the twelve-month period preceding such termination. In addition, following any termination of the Management Agreement, our Manager may require us to purchase its right to receive incentive compensation at a price determined as if our assets were sold for their fair market value (as determined by an appraisal, taking into account, among other things, the expected future value of the underlying investments) or otherwise we may continue to pay the incentive compensation to our Manager. These provisions may increase the effective cost to us of terminating the Management Agreement, thereby adversely affecting our ability to terminate our Manager without cause.

Our directors have approved broad investment guidelines for our Manager and do not approve each investment decision made by our Manager. In addition, we may change our investment strategy without stockholder consent, which may result in our making investments that are different, riskier or less profitable than our current investments.

Our Manager is authorized to follow broad investment guidelines. For more information about our investment guidelines, see “Business—Investment Guidelines” included elsewhere in this information statement. Consequently, our Manager has great latitude in determining the types and categories of assets it may decide are proper investments for us, including the latitude to invest in types and categories of assets that may differ from those in which we currently invest. Our directors will periodically review our investment guidelines and our investment portfolio. However, our board does not review or pre-approve each proposed investment or our related financing arrangements. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, the directors rely primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Furthermore, transactions entered into by our Manager may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by the directors even if the transactions contravene the terms of the Management Agreement.

Our investment strategy may evolve in light of existing market conditions and investment opportunities, and this evolution may involve additional risks depending upon the nature of the assets in which we invest and our ability to finance such assets on a short or long-term basis. Investment opportunities that present unattractive risk-return profiles relative to other available investment opportunities under particular market conditions may become relatively attractive under changed market conditions and changes in market conditions may therefore result in changes in the investments we target. Decisions to make investments in new asset categories present risks that may be difficult for us to adequately assess and could therefore reduce our ability to pay dividends on our common stock or have adverse effects on our liquidity or financial condition. A change in our investment strategy may also increase our exposure to interest rate, foreign currency, real estate market or credit market fluctuations. In addition, a change in our investment strategy may increase our use of non-match-funded financing, increase the guarantee obligations we agree to incur or increase the number of transactions we enter into with affiliates. Our failure to accurately assess the risks inherent in new asset categories or the financing risks associated with such assets could adversely affect our results of operations and our financial condition.

Our Manager will not be liable to us for any acts or omissions performed in accordance with the Management Agreement, including with respect to the performance of our investments.

Pursuant to our Management Agreement, our Manager will not assume any responsibility other than to render the services called for thereunder in good faith and will not be responsible for any action of our board of directors in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. Our Manager, its members, managers, officers and employees will not be liable to us or any of our subsidiaries, to our board of directors, or our or any subsidiary’s stockholders or partners for any acts or omissions by our Manager, its members, managers, officers or employees, except by reason of acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of our Manager’s duties under our Management Agreement. We shall, to the full extent lawful, reimburse, indemnify and hold our Manager, its members, managers, officers and employees and each other person, if any, controlling our Manager harmless of and from any and all expenses, losses, damages, liabilities,

48

Table of Contents

demands, charges and claims of any nature whatsoever (including attorneys’ fees) in respect of or arising from any acts or omissions of an indemnified party made in good faith in the performance of our Manager’s duties under our Management Agreement and not constituting such indemnified party’s bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of our Manager’s duties under our Management Agreement.

Our Manager’s due diligence of investment opportunities or other transactions may not identify all pertinent risks, which could materially affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Our Manager intends to conduct due diligence with respect to each investment opportunity or other transaction it pursues. It is possible, however, that our Manager’s due diligence processes will not uncover all relevant facts, particularly with respect to any assets we acquire from third parties. In these cases, our Manager may be given limited access to information about the investment and will rely on information provided by the target of the investment. In addition, if investment opportunities are scarce, the process for selecting bidders is competitive, or the timeframe in which we are required to complete diligence is short, our ability to conduct a due diligence investigation may be limited, and we would be required to make investment decisions based upon a less thorough diligence process than would otherwise be the case. Accordingly, investments and other transactions that initially appear to be viable may prove not to be over time, due to the limitations of the due diligence process or other factors.

RISKS RELATED TO THE SEPARATION

We may be unable to achieve some or all of the benefits that we expect to achieve from our separation from Newcastle.

We may not be able to achieve the full strategic and financial benefits that we expect will result from our separation from Newcastle or such benefits may be delayed or may not occur at all. For example, there can be no assurance that analysts and investors will regard our corporate structure as clearer and simpler than the current Newcastle corporate structure or place a greater value on our company as a stand-alone REIT than on our businesses being a part of Newcastle.

Our agreements with Newcastle may not reflect terms that would have resulted from arm’s-length negotiations among unaffiliated third parties.

The agreements related to our separation from Newcastle, including the Separation and Distribution Agreement, were negotiated in the context of our separation from Newcastle while we were still part of Newcastle and, accordingly, may not reflect terms that would have resulted from arm’s-length negotiations among unaffiliated third parties. The terms of the agreements we negotiated in the context of our separation related to, among other things, allocation of assets, liabilities, rights, indemnifications and other obligations among Newcastle and us. See “Certain Relationships and Transactions with Related Persons, Affiliates and Affiliated Entities.”

The ownership by our executive officers and some of our directors of shares of common stock, options, or other equity awards of Newcastle may create, or may create the appearance of, conflicts of interest.

Because some of our directors, officers and other employees of our Manager also currently hold positions with Newcastle, they own Newcastle common stock, options to purchase Newcastle common stock or other equity awards. Ownership by some of our directors and officers, after our separation, of common stock or options to purchase common stock of Newcastle, or any other equity awards, creates, or, may create the appearance of, conflicts of interest when these directors and officers are faced with decisions that could have different implications for Newcastle than they do for us.

49

Table of Contents

The distribution of our common stock will not qualify for tax-free treatment and may be taxable to you as a dividend.

The distribution of our common stock will not qualify for tax-free treatment. An amount equal to the fair market value of our common stock received by you on the distribution date will be treated as a taxable dividend to the extent of your ratable share of any current or accumulated earnings and profits of Newcastle, with the excess treated first as a non-taxable return of capital to the extent of your tax basis in Newcastle common stock and then as capital gain. In addition, Newcastle or other applicable withholding agents may be required or permitted to withhold at the applicable rate on all or a portion of the distribution payable to non-U.S. shareholders, and any such withholding would be satisfied by Newcastle or such agent withholding and selling a portion of the New Residential stock otherwise distributable to non-U.S. shareholders. Your tax basis in shares of Newcastle held at the time of the distribution will be reduced (but not below zero) to the extent the fair market value of our shares distributed by Newcastle to you in the distribution exceeds your ratable share of Newcastle’s current and accumulated earnings and profits. Your holding period for such Newcastle shares will not be affected by the distribution. Newcastle will not be able to advise stockholders of the amount of earnings and profits of Newcastle until after the end of the 2013 calendar year.

Although Newcastle will be ascribing a value to our shares in the distribution for tax purposes, this valuation is not binding on the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) or any other tax authority. These taxing authorities could ascribe a higher valuation to our shares, particularly if our stock trades at prices significantly above the value ascribed to our shares by Newcastle in the period following the distribution. Such a higher valuation may cause a larger reduction in the tax basis of your Newcastle shares or may cause you to recognize additional dividend or capital gain income. You should consult your own tax advisor as to the particular tax consequences of the distribution to you.

We may compete with affiliates of our Manager, including Newcastle, which could adversely affect our and their results of operations.

Affiliates of our Manager, including Newcastle, are primarily engaged in the business of real estate investment and finance, and invest in, and actively manage, portfolios of real estate securities, loans and other assets. Affiliates of our Manager, including Newcastle, are not restricted in any manner from competing with us. After the distribution, affiliates of our Manager, including Newcastle, may decide to invest in the same types of assets that we invest in. Furthermore, after the distribution, we will have the same Manager and directors and officers as Newcastle and certain of our Manager’s other affiliates. See “—Risks Related to Our Manager—There are conflicts of interest in our relationship with our Manager.”

RISKS RELATED TO THE FINANCIAL MARKETS

We do not know what impact the Dodd-Frank Act will have on our business.

On July 21, 2010, the U.S. enacted the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act affects almost every aspect of the U.S. financial services industry, including certain aspects of the markets in which we operate. The Dodd-Frank Act imposes new regulations on us and how we conduct our business. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act will impose additional disclosure requirements for public companies and generally require issuers or originators of asset-backed securities to retain at least five percent of the credit risk associated with the securitized assets. In addition, as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, we may be required to register as an investment adviser with the SEC, which increases our regulatory compliance costs and subjects us to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”). The Advisers Act imposes numerous obligations on registered investment advisers, including record-keeping, reporting, operational and marketing requirements, disclosure obligations and prohibitions on fraudulent activities. The SEC is authorized to institute proceedings and impose sanctions for violations of the Advisers Act, ranging from fines and censure to termination of an investment adviser’s

50

Table of Contents

registration. Investment advisers also are subject to certain state securities laws and regulations. Non-compliance with the Advisers Act or other federal and state securities laws and regulations could result in investigations, sanctions, disgorgement, fines and reputational damage.

The Dodd-Frank Act will impose mandatory clearing, exchange-trading and margin requirements on many derivatives transactions (including formerly unregulated over-the-counter derivatives) in which we may engage. The Dodd-Frank Act also creates new categories of regulated market participants, such as “swap-dealers,” “security-based swap dealers,” “major swap participants” and “major security-based swap participants,” who will be subject to significant new capital, registration, recordkeeping, reporting, disclosure, business conduct and other regulatory requirements that will give rise to new administrative costs.

Even if certain new requirements are not directly applicable to us, they may still increase our costs of entering into transactions with the parties to whom the requirements are directly applicable. Moreover, new exchange-trading and trade reporting requirements may lead to reductions in the liquidity of derivative transactions, causing higher pricing or reduced availability of derivatives, or the reduction of arbitrage opportunities for us, which could adversely affect the performance of certain of our trading strategies. Importantly, many key aspects of the changes imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act will be established by various regulatory bodies and other groups over the next several years. As a result, we do not know how significantly the Dodd-Frank Act will affect us. It is possible that the Dodd-Frank Act could, among other things, increase our costs of operating as a public company, impose restrictions on our ability to securitize assets and reduce our investment returns on securitized assets.

We do not know what impact certain U.S. government programs intended to stabilize the economy and the financial markets will have on our business.

In recent years, the U.S. government has taken a number of steps to attempt to strengthen the financial markets and U.S. economy, including direct government investments in, and guarantees of, troubled financial institutions as well as government-sponsored programs such as the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility program and the Public Private Investment Partnership Program. The U.S. government continues to evaluate or implement an array of other measures and programs intended to help improve U.S. financial and market conditions. While conditions appear to have improved relative to the depths of the global financial crisis, it is not clear whether this improvement is real or will last for a significant period of time. It is not clear what impact the government’s future actions to improve financial and market conditions will have on our business. We may not derive any meaningful benefit from these programs in the future. Moreover, if any of our competitors are able to benefit from one or more of these initiatives, they may gain a significant competitive advantage over us.

The federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related efforts, along with any changes in laws and regulations affecting the relationship between these agencies and the U.S. government, may adversely affect our business.

Due to increased market concerns about the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to withstand future credit losses associated with securities held in their investment portfolios, and on which they provide guarantees without the direct support of the U.S. federal government, on July 30, 2008, the U.S. government passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. On September 7, 2008, the FHFA, placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship and, together with the U.S. Treasury, established a program designed to boost investor confidence in their respective debt and MBS.

As the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FHFA controls and directs the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and may (i) take over the assets and operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with all the powers of the shareholders, the directors and the officers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and conduct all business of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (ii) collect all obligations and money due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (iii) perform all functions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are consistent with the conservator’s appointment; (iv) preserve and conserve the assets and property of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and (v) contract for assistance in fulfilling any function, activity, action or duty of the conservator.

51

Table of Contents

In addition to the FHFA becoming the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. Treasury and the FHFA have entered into preferred stock purchase agreements among the U.S. Treasury, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pursuant to which the U.S. Treasury will ensure that each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac maintains a positive net worth.

Although the U.S. Treasury has committed capital to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, these actions may not be adequate for their needs. If these actions are inadequate, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could continue to suffer losses and could fail to honor their guarantees and other obligations. The future roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be significantly reduced and the nature of their guarantees could be considerably limited relative to historical measurements. Any changes to the nature of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could redefine what constitute agency and government conforming MBS and could have broad adverse market implications. Such market implications could adversely affect our business and prospects.

Legislation that permits modifications to the terms of outstanding loans may negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The U.S. government has enacted legislation that enables government agencies to modify the terms of a significant number of residential and other loans to provide relief to borrowers without the applicable investor’s consent. These modifications allow for outstanding principal to be deferred, interest rates to be reduced, the term of the loan to be extended or other terms to be changed in ways that can permanently eliminate the cash flow (principal and interest) associated with a portion of the loan. These modifications are currently reducing, or in the future may reduce, the value of a number of our current or future investments, including investments in mortgage backed securities and Excess MSRs. As a result, such loan modifications are negatively affecting our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, certain market participants propose reducing the amount of paperwork required by a borrower to modify a loan, which could increase the likelihood of fraudulent modifications and materially harm the U.S. mortgage market and investors that have exposure to this market. Additional legislation intended to provide relief to borrowers may be enacted and could further harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR TAXATION AS A REIT

Our failure to qualify as a REIT would result in higher taxes and reduced cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Following the distribution, we intend to operate in a manner intended to qualify us as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends upon our analysis of the fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we do 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. Moreover, the proper classification of one or more of our investments may be uncertain in some circumstances, which could affect the application of the REIT qualification requirements. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the IRS, will not contend that our investments violate the REIT requirements.

If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, we would be subject to U.S. federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates, and distributions to stockholders would not be deductible by us in computing our taxable income. Any such corporate tax liability could be substantial and would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders, which in turn could have an adverse impact on the value of, and trading prices for, our stock. Unless entitled to relief under certain provisions of the Code, we also would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we initially ceased to qualify as a REIT. The rule against re-electing REIT status following a loss of such status would also apply to us if Newcastle fails to

52

Table of Contents

qualify as a REIT, and we are treated as a successor to Newcastle for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Although, as described under the heading “Certain Relationships and Transactions with Related Persons, Affiliates and Affiliated Entities,” Newcastle represented in the Separation and Distribution Agreement that it has no knowledge of any fact or circumstance that would cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT, and covenanted in the Separation and Distribution Agreement to use its reasonable best efforts to maintain its REIT status for each of Newcastle’s taxable years ending on or before December 31, 2014 (unless Newcastle obtains an opinion from a nationally recognized tax counsel or a private letter ruling from the IRS to the effect that Newcastle’s failure to maintain its REIT status will not cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT under the successor REIT rule referred to above), no assurance can be given that such representation and covenant would prevent us from failing to qualify as a REIT. Although, in the event of a breach, we may be able to seek damages from Newcastle, there can be no assurance that such damages, if any, would appropriately compensate us. In addition, if Newcastle were to fail to qualify as a REIT despite its reasonable best efforts, we would have no claim against Newcastle. See “Federal Income Tax Considerations” for a discussion of material U.S. federal income tax consequences relating to us and our common stock.

Our failure to qualify as a REIT would cause our stock to be delisted from the NYSE.

The NYSE requires, as a condition to the listing of our shares, that we maintain our REIT status. Consequently, if we fail to maintain our REIT status, our shares would promptly be delisted from the NYSE, which would decrease the trading activity of such shares. This could make it difficult to sell shares and could cause the market volume of the shares trading to decline.

If we were delisted as a result of losing our REIT status and desired to relist our shares on the NYSE, we would have to reapply to the NYSE to be listed as a domestic corporation. As the NYSE’s listing standards for REITs are less onerous than its standards for domestic corporations, it would be more difficult for us to become a listed company under these heightened standards. We might not be able to satisfy the NYSE’s listing standards for a domestic corporation. As a result, if we were delisted from the NYSE, we might not be able to relist as a domestic corporation, in which case our shares could not trade on the NYSE.

The failure of assets subject to repurchase agreements to qualify as real estate assets could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

We intend to enter into financing arrangements that are structured as sale and repurchase agreements pursuant to which we would nominally sell certain of our assets to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase these assets at a later date in exchange for a purchase price. Economically, these agreements are financings that are secured by the assets sold pursuant thereto. We believe that, for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests, we should be treated as the owner of the assets that are the subject of any such sale and repurchase agreement, notwithstanding that those agreements may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could assert that we did not own the assets during the term of the sale and repurchase agreement, in which case we might fail to qualify as a REIT.

The failure of our Excess MSRs to qualify as real estate assets or the income from our Excess MSRs to qualify as mortgage interest could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

We have received from the IRS a private letter ruling substantially to the effect that our Excess MSRs represent interests in mortgages on real property and thus are qualifying “real estate assets” for purposes of the REIT asset test, which generate income that qualifies as interest on obligations secured by mortgages on real property for purposes of the REIT income test. The ruling is based on, among other things, certain assumptions as well as on the accuracy of certain factual representations and statements that we and Newcastle have made to the IRS. If any of the representations or statements that we have made in connection with the private letter ruling, are, or

53

Table of Contents

become, inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect with respect to one or more Excess MSR investments, or if we acquire an Excess MSR investment with terms that are not consistent with the terms of the Excess MSR investments described in the private letter ruling, then we will not be able to rely on the private letter ruling. If we are unable to rely on the private letter ruling with respect to an Excess MSR investment, the IRS could assert that such Excess MSR investments do not qualify under the REIT asset and income tests, and if successful, we might fail to qualify as a REIT.

Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates available for some dividends.

Dividends payable to domestic stockholders that are individuals, trusts, and estates are generally taxed at reduced tax rates. Dividends payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for the reduced rates. The more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our common stock. In addition, the relative attractiveness of real estate in general may be adversely affected by the favorable tax treatment given to non-REIT corporate dividends, which could affect the value of our real estate assets negatively.

Qualifying as a REIT involves highly technical and complex provisions of the Code.

Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions for which only limited judicial and administrative authorities exist. Even a technical or inadvertent violation could jeopardize our REIT qualification. Our qualification as a REIT will depend on our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. Compliance with these requirements must be carefully monitored on a continuing basis, and there can be no assurance that our Manager’s personnel responsible for doing so will be able to successfully monitor our compliance.

REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to execute our business plan.

We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding any net capital gain, in order for corporate income tax not to apply to earnings that we distribute. We intend to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the REIT requirements of the Code. However, differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash could require us to sell assets or borrow funds on a short-term or long-term basis to meet the 90% distribution requirement of the Code. Certain of our assets may generate substantial mismatches between taxable income and available cash. As a result, 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 taxable distributions of our capital stock or debt securities in order to comply with REIT requirements. Further, amounts distributed will not be available to fund investment activities. If we fail to obtain debt or equity capital in the future, it could limit our ability to satisfy our liquidity needs, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

We may be required to report taxable income for certain investments in excess of the economic income we ultimately realize from them.

Based on IRS guidance concerning the classification of Excess MSRs, we intend to treat our Excess MSRs as ownership interests in the interest payments made on the underlying mortgage loans, akin to an “interest only” strip. Under this treatment, for purposes of determining the amount and timing of taxable income, each Excess MSR is treated as a bond that was issued with original issue discount on the date we acquired such Excess MSR. In general, we will be required to accrue original issue discount based on the constant yield to maturity of each

54

Table of Contents

Excess MSR, and to treat such original issue discount as taxable income in accordance with the applicable U.S. federal income tax rules. The constant yield of an Excess MSR will be determined, and we will be taxed, based on a prepayment assumption regarding future payments due on the mortgage loans underlying the Excess MSR. If the mortgage loans underlying an Excess MSR prepay at a rate different than that under the prepayment assumption, our recognition of original issue discount will be either increased or decreased depending on the circumstances. Thus, in a particular taxable year, we may be required to accrue an amount of income in respect of an Excess MSR that exceeds the amount of cash collected in respect of that Excess MSR. Furthermore, it is possible that, over the life of the investment in an Excess MSR, the total amount we pay for, and accrue with respect to, the Excess MSR may exceed the total amount we collect on such Excess MSR. No assurance can be given that we will be entitled to a deduction for such excess, meaning that we may be required to recognize phantom income over the life of an Excess MSR.

Other debt instruments that we may acquire, including consumer loans, may be issued with, or treated as issued with, original issue discount. Those instruments would be subject to the same original issue discount accrual and income computations which are described above with regard to Excess MSRs.

We may acquire debt instruments in the secondary market for less than their face amount. The discount at which such debt instruments are acquired may reflect doubts about their ultimate collectability rather than current market interest rates. The amount of such discount will nevertheless generally be treated as “market discount” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Accrued market discount is reported as income when, and to the extent that, any payment of principal of the debt instrument is made. If we collect less on the debt instrument than our purchase price plus the market discount we had previously reported as income, we may not be able to benefit from any offsetting loss deductions.

In addition, we may acquire debt instruments that are subsequently modified by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding instrument are “significant modifications” under the applicable Treasury regulations, the modified instrument will be considered to have been reissued to us in a debt-for-debt exchange with the borrower. In that event, we may be required to recognize taxable gain to the extent the principal amount of the modified instrument exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified instrument, even if the value of the instrument or the payment expectations have not changed. Following such a taxable modification, we would hold the modified loan with a cost basis equal to its principal amount for U.S. federal tax purposes.

Finally, in the event that any debt instruments acquired by us are delinquent as to mandatory principal and interest payments, or in the event payments with respect to a particular instrument are not made when due, we may nonetheless be required to continue to recognize the unpaid interest as taxable income as it accrues, despite doubt as to its ultimate collectability. Similarly, we may be required to accrue interest income with respect to debt instruments at the stated rate regardless of whether corresponding cash payments are received or are ultimately collectible. In each case, while we would in general ultimately have an offsetting loss deduction available to us when such interest was determined to be uncollectible, the utility of that deduction could depend on our having taxable income of an appropriate character in that later year or thereafter.

In any event, if our investments generate more taxable income than cash in any given year, we may have difficulty satisfying our annual REIT distribution requirement. See “Federal Income Tax Considerations— Annual Distribution Requirements.”

We may be unable to generate sufficient revenue from operations to pay our operating expenses and to pay distributions to our stockholders.

As a REIT, we are generally required to distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and not including net capital losses) each year to our stockholders. To qualify for the tax benefits accorded to REITs, we intend to make distributions to our stockholders in amounts such that we distribute all or substantially all of our net taxable income each year, subject to certain adjustments. However, our ability to make distributions may be adversely affected by the risk factors described herein.

55

Table of Contents

The stock ownership limit imposed by the Code for REITs and our certificate of incorporation may inhibit market activity in our stock and restrict our business combination opportunities.

In order for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT under the Code, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities) at any time during the last half of each taxable year after our first taxable year. Our certificate of incorporation, with certain exceptions, authorizes our board of directors to take the actions that are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Unless exempted by our board of directors, no person may own more than 9.9% of the aggregate value of our outstanding capital stock, treating classes and series of our stock in the aggregate. Our board may grant an exemption in its sole discretion, subject to such conditions, representations and undertakings as it may determine in its sole discretion. These ownership limits could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in our control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Even if we remain qualified as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, tax on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, and state or local income, property and transfer taxes. Moreover, if a REIT distributes less than 85% of its taxable income to its stockholders during any calendar year (including any distributions declared by the last day of the calendar year but paid in the subsequent year), then it is required to pay an excise tax on 4% of any shortfall between the required 85% and the amount that was actually distributed. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our stockholders. In addition, 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 may hold some of our assets through taxable REIT subsidiaries (“TRS”). Such subsidiaries will be subject to corporate level income tax at regular rates.

Complying with the REIT requirements may negatively impact our investment returns or cause us to forego otherwise attractive opportunities, liquidate assets or contribute assets to a TRS.

To qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. As a result of these tests, we may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution, forego otherwise attractive investment opportunities, liquidate assets in adverse market conditions or contribute assets to a TRS that is subject to regular corporate federal income tax. Our ability to acquire Excess MSRs and other investments will be subject to the applicable REIT qualification tests, and we may have to hold these interests through TRSs, which would negatively impact our returns from these assets. In general, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to make and retain certain attractive investments.

Complying with the REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively.

The existing REIT provisions of the Code may substantially limit our ability to hedge our operations because a significant amount of the income from those hedging transactions is likely to be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both REIT gross income tests. In addition, we must limit our aggregate income from non-qualified hedging transactions, from our provision of services and from other non-qualifying sources, to less than 5% of our annual gross income (determined without regard to gross income from qualified hedging transactions). As a result, we may have to limit our use of certain hedging techniques or implement those hedges through total return swaps. This could result in greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to incur or could increase the cost of our hedging activities. If we fail to comply with these limitations, we could lose our REIT qualification for U.S. federal income tax purposes, unless our failure was due to reasonable cause, and not due to willful neglect, and we meet certain other technical requirements. Even if our failure were due to reasonable cause, we might incur a penalty tax.

56

Table of Contents

Distributions to tax-exempt investors may be classified as unrelated business taxable income.

Neither ordinary nor capital gain distributions with respect to our stock nor gain from the sale of stock should generally constitute unrelated business taxable income to a tax-exempt investor. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule. In particular:

The “taxable mortgage pool” rules may increase the taxes that we or our stockholders may incur, and may limit the manner in which we effect future securitizations.

We may enter into securitization or other financing transactions that result in the creation of taxable mortgage pools for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a REIT, so long as we own 100% of the equity interests in a taxable mortgage pool, we would generally not be adversely affected by the characterization of a securitization as a taxable mortgage pool. Certain categories of stockholders, however, such as foreign stockholders eligible for treaty or other benefits, stockholders with net operating losses, and certain tax-exempt stockholders that are subject to unrelated business income tax, could be subject to increased taxes on a portion of their dividend income from us that is attributable to the taxable mortgage pool. In addition, to the extent that our stock is owned by tax-exempt “disqualified organizations,” such as certain government-related entities and charitable remainder trusts that are not subject to tax on unrelated business income, we could incur a corporate level tax on a portion of our income from the taxable mortgage pool. In that case, we might reduce the amount of our distributions to any disqualified organization whose stock ownership gave rise to the tax. Moreover, we may 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. These limitations may prevent us from using certain techniques to maximize our returns from securitization transactions.

Uncertainty exists with respect to the treatment of TBAs for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests.

We may purchase and sell Agency RMBS through “to-be-announced” forward contracts (“TBAs”) and recognize income or gains from the disposition of those TBAs, through dollar roll transactions or otherwise. There is no direct authority with respect to the qualification of TBAs as real estate assets or U.S. Government securities for purposes of the 75% asset test or the qualification of income or gains from dispositions of TBAs as gains from the sale of real property (including interests in real property and interests in mortgages on real property) or other qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test. To the extent we enter into any TBAs in the future, we intend to treat such TBAs as qualifying assets for purposes of the REIT asset tests, and we intend to treat income and gains from such TBAs as qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, based on an opinion we would expect to receive from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP substantially to the effect that (i) for purposes of the REIT asset tests, our ownership of a TBA should be treated as ownership of the underlying Agency RMBS, and (ii) for purposes of the 75% REIT gross income test, any gain recognized by us in connection with the settlement of such TBAs should be treated as gain from the sale or disposition of the underlying Agency RMBS. Opinions of

57

Table of Contents

counsel are not binding on the IRS, and no assurance can be given that the IRS will not successfully challenge the conclusions set forth in such opinions. In addition, it must be emphasized that the opinion of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP would be based on various assumptions relating to any TBAs that we may enter into and would be conditioned upon fact-based representations and covenants made by our management regarding such TBAs. No assurance can be given that the IRS would not assert that such assets or income are not qualifying assets or income. If the IRS were to successfully challenge the conclusions of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, we could be subject to a penalty tax or we could fail to qualify as a REIT if a sufficient portion of our assets consists of TBAs or a sufficient portion of our income consists of income or gains from the disposition of TBAs.

The tax on prohibited transactions will limit our ability to engage in transactions which would be treated as prohibited transactions for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Net income that we derive from a prohibited transaction is subject to a 100% tax. The term “prohibited transaction” generally includes a sale or other disposition of property (including mortgage loans, but other than foreclosure property, as discussed below) that is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of our trade or business. We might be subject to this tax if we were to dispose of or securitize loans or Excess MSRs in a manner that was treated as a prohibited transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

We intend to conduct our operations so that no asset that we own (or are treated as owning) will be treated as, or as having been, held for sale to customers, and that a sale of any such asset will not be treated as having been in the ordinary course of our business. As a result, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of loans or Excess MSRs at the REIT level, and may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions, even though the sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us. In addition, whether property is held “primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business” depends on the particular facts and circumstances. No assurance can be given that any property that we sell will not be treated as property held for sale to customers, or that we can comply with certain safe-harbor provisions of the Code that would prevent such treatment. The 100% prohibited transaction tax does not apply to gains from the sale of property that is held through a TRS or other taxable corporation, although such income will be subject to tax in the hands of the corporation at regular corporate rates. We intend to structure our activities to prevent prohibited transaction characterization.

New legislation or administrative or judicial action, in each instance potentially with retroactive effect, could make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify as a REIT.

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 us. The U.S. federal income tax rules dealing with REITs constantly are under review by persons involved in the legislative process, the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department, which results in statutory changes as well as frequent revisions to regulations and interpretations. Revisions in U.S. federal tax laws and interpretations thereof could affect or cause us to change our investments and commitments and affect the tax considerations of an investment in us.

Liquidation of assets may jeopardize our REIT qualification or create additional tax liability for us.

To qualify as a REIT, we must comply with requirements regarding the composition of our assets and our sources of income. If we are compelled to liquidate our investments to repay obligations to our lenders, we may be unable to comply with these requirements, ultimately jeopardizing our qualification as a REIT, or we may be subject to a 100% tax on any resultant gain if we sell assets that are treated as dealer property or inventory.

58

Table of Contents

RISKS RELATED TO OUR COMMON STOCK

There is no existing market for our common stock and a trading market that will provide you with adequate liquidity may not develop for our common stock. In addition, once our common stock begins trading, the market price of our shares may fluctuate widely.

There is currently no public market for our common stock. It is anticipated that on or prior to the record date for the distribution, trading of shares of our common stock will begin on a “when-issued” basis and will continue up to and including through the distribution date. However, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for our common stock will develop as a result of the distribution or be sustained in the future.

We cannot predict the prices at which our common stock may trade after the distribution. The market price of our common stock may fluctuate widely, depending upon many factors, some of which may be beyond our control, including:

Stock markets in general have experienced volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of a particular company. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock.

Substantial sales of common stock may occur in connection with the distribution, which could cause our stock price to decline.

The shares of our common stock that Newcastle intends to distribute to its stockholders generally may be sold immediately in the public market. Although we have no actual knowledge of any plan or intention on the part of any 5% or greater stockholder to sell our common stock following the distribution. It is possible that some Newcastle stockholders, including possibly some of our large stockholders, will sell our common stock received in the distribution. In addition, Newcastle stockholders may sell our stock because our business profile or market capitalization as an independent company does not fit their investment objectives or because our common stock is not included in certain indices after the distribution. The sales of significant amounts of our common stock or the perception in the market that this will occur may result in the lowering of the market price of our common stock.

59

Table of Contents

We are an emerging growth company within the meaning of the Securities Act, and if we decide to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies, our common stock could be less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act. As such, we are eligible to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies” including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and exemptions from the requirements of holding a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. As a result, our stockholders may not have access to certain information they may deem important. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (a) the last day of the first fiscal year in which our annual gross revenues exceed $1 billion, (b) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of the first sale of our common equity securities pursuant to an effective registration statement under the Securities Act, (c) the date that we become a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act, which would occur if the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter or (d) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the preceding three-year period. If we take advantage of any of these exemptions, we do not know if some investors will find our common stock less attractive as a result. The result may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

Failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could have a material adverse effect on our business and stock price.

As a public company, we will be required to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Internal control over financial reporting is complex and may be revised over time to adapt to changes in our business, or changes in applicable accounting rules. We cannot assure you that our internal control over financial reporting will be effective in the future or that a material weakness will not be discovered with respect to a prior period for which we had previously believed that internal controls were effective. If we are not able to maintain or document effective internal control over financial reporting, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be able to certify as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Matters impacting our internal controls may cause us to be unable to report our financial information on a timely basis, or may cause us to restate previously issued financial information, and thereby subject us to adverse regulatory consequences, including sanctions or investigations by the SEC, or violations of applicable stock exchange listing rules. There could also be a negative reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of investor confidence in us and the reliability of our financial statements. Confidence in the reliability of our financial statements is also likely to suffer if we or our independent registered public accounting firm reports a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. This could materially adversely affect us by, for example, leading to a decline in our share price and impairing our ability to raise capital.

Your percentage ownership in New Residential may be diluted in the future.

Your percentage ownership in New Residential may be diluted in the future because of equity awards that we expect will be granted to our Manager, to the directors, officers and employees of our Manager who perform services for us, and to our directors, officers and employees, as well as other equity instruments such as debt and equity financing. In addition, following the distribution, we expect Newcastle options held by our Manager, by the directors, officers and employees of our Manager, and by our directors, officers and employees will be equitably adjusted to become separate options relating to both Newcastle common stock and our common stock, resulting in additional dilution to your ownership percentage in New Residential. It is anticipated that                  options relating to our common stock will be distributed pursuant to such adjustment. For a description of the equitable adjustments expected to be made to Newcastle options, see “Management—Equitable Adjustment of Options.” Prior to the separation and record date for the distribution, we expect the board of directors of New

60

Table of Contents

Residential to approve a Nonqualified Stock Option and Incentive Award Plan (the “Plan”) which will provide for the grant of equity-based awards, including restricted stock, stock options, stock appreciation rights, performance awards, tandem awards and other equity-based and non equity based awards, in each case to our Manager, to the directors, officers, employees, service providers, consultants and advisor of our Manager who perform services for us, and to our directors, officers, employees, service providers, consultants and advisors. We have initially reserved 30,000,000 shares of our common stock for issuance under the Plan; on the first day of each fiscal year beginning during the ten-year term of the Plan and in and after calendar year 2014, that number will be increased by a number of shares of our common stock equal to 10% of the number of shares of our common stock newly issued by us during the immediately preceding fiscal year (and, in the case of fiscal year 2013, after the effective date of the Plan). For a more detailed description of the New Residential Equity Incentive Plan, see “Management—Stock Option Plan.” Our board of directors may also determine to issue options to the Manager that are not subject to the Plan, provided that the number of shares underlying any options granted to the Manager in connection with capital raising efforts would not exceed 10% of the shares sold in such offering and would be subject to NYSE rules.

We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and we cannot assure you of our ability to pay distributions in the future.

We intend to make quarterly distributions of all or substantially all of our net taxable income to holders of our common stock out of assets legally available therefore. We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and our ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors described in this information statement. Distributions will be authorized by our board of directors and declared by us based upon a number of factors, including actual results of operations, restrictions under Delaware law or applicable debt covenants, our financial condition, our taxable income, the annual distribution requirements under the REIT provisions of the Code, our operating expenses and other factors our directors deem relevant. We cannot assure you that we will achieve investment results that will allow us to make a specified level of cash distributions or year-to-year increases in cash distributions in the future.

Furthermore, while we are required to make distributions in order to maintain our REIT status (as described above under “Risks Related to our Taxation as a REIT—We may be unable to generate sufficient revenue from operations to pay our operating expenses and to pay distributions to our stockholders”), we may elect not to maintain our REIT status, in which case we would no longer be required to make such distributions. Moreover, even if we do elect to maintain our REIT status, we may elect to comply with the applicable requirements by, after completing various procedural steps, distributing, under certain circumstances, a portion of the required amount in the form of shares of our common stock in lieu of cash. If we elect not to maintain our REIT status or to satisfy any required distributions in shares of common stock in lieu of cash, such action could negatively affect our business and financial condition as well as the price of our common stock. No assurance can be given that we will pay any dividends on shares of our common stock in the future.

We may in the future choose to pay dividends in our own stock, in which case you could be required to pay income taxes in excess of the cash dividends you receive.

We may in the future distribute taxable dividends that are payable in cash and shares of our common stock at the election of each stockholder. Taxable stockholders receiving such dividends will be required to include the full amount of the dividend as ordinary income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits for federal income tax purposes. As a result, stockholders may be required to pay income taxes with respect to such dividends in excess of the cash dividends received. If a U.S. stockholder sells the stock that it receives as a dividend in order to pay this tax, the sale proceeds may be less than the amount included in income with respect to the dividend, depending on the market price of our stock at the time of the sale. Furthermore, with respect to certain non-U.S. stockholders, we may be required to withhold U.S. tax with respect to such dividends, including in respect of all or a portion of such dividend that is payable in stock. In addition, if a significant number of our stockholders determine to sell shares of our common stock in order to pay taxes owed on dividends, it may put downward pressure on the trading price of our common stock.

61

Table of Contents

It is unclear whether and to what extent we will be able to pay taxable dividends in cash and stock in later years. Moreover, various aspects of such a taxable cash/stock dividend are uncertain and have not yet been addressed by the IRS. No assurance can be given that the IRS will not impose additional requirements in the future with respect to taxable cash/stock dividends, including on a retroactive basis, or assert that the requirements for such taxable cash/stock dividends have not been met.

An increase in market interest rates may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell shares of our common stock is our distribution rate as a percentage of our share price relative to market interest rates. If the market price of our common stock is based primarily on the earnings and return that we derive from our investments and income with respect to our investments and our related distributions to stockholders, and not from the market value of the investments themselves, then interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions will likely affect the market price of our common stock. For instance, if market interest rates rise without an increase in our distribution rate, the market price of our common stock could decrease as potential investors may require a higher distribution yield on our common stock or seek other securities paying higher distributions or interest. In addition, rising interest rates would result in increased interest expense on our variable rate debt, thereby adversely affecting cash flow and our ability to service our indebtedness and pay distributions.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and of Delaware law may prevent or delay an acquisition of our company, which could decrease the trading price of our common stock.

Our certificate of incorporation, bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions that are intended to deter coercive takeover practices and inadequate takeover bids by making such practices or bids unacceptably expensive to the raider and to encourage prospective acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors rather than to attempt a hostile takeover. These provisions include, among others:

Public stockholders who might desire to participate in these types of transactions may not have an opportunity to do so, even if the transaction is considered favorable to stockholders. These anti-takeover provisions could

62

Table of Contents

substantially impede the ability of public stockholders to benefit from a change in control or a change in our management and board of directors and, as a result, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and your ability to realize any potential change of control premium. See “Description of Our Capital Stock— Anti-Takeover Effects of Delaware Law, Our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws.”

ERISA may restrict investments by plans in our common stock.

A plan fiduciary considering an investment in our common stock should consider, among other things, whether such an investment is consistent with the fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), including whether such investment might constitute or give rise to a prohibited transaction under ERISA, the Code or any substantially similar federal, state or local law and, if so, whether an exemption from such prohibited transaction rules is available.

63

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This information statement contains certain “forward-looking statements” that are subject to risks and uncertainties. These statements are not historical facts but instead represent only our belief regarding future events, many of which are inherently uncertain and outside of our control. These statements may address, among other things, our possible or assumed future results of our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, plans and objectives. When we use the words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “plan,” “continue,” “intend,” “should,” “may,” “will” or similar expressions, we intend to identify forward-looking statements. Our actual results, liquidity and financial condition may differ from the anticipated results, liquidity and financial condition indicated in these forward-looking statements. The important factors, many of which are outside of our control, that could cause our actual results to differ, possibly materially, include, but are not limited to, the following:

64

Table of Contents

We also direct readers to other risks and uncertainties referenced in this information statement, including those set forth under “Risk Factors.” We caution that you should not place undue reliance on any of our forward-looking statements. Further, any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made. New risks and uncertainties arise from time to time, and it is impossible for us to predict those events or how they may affect us. Except as required by law, we are under no obligation (and expressly disclaim any obligation) to update or alter any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that we may make from time to time, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

65

Table of Contents

OUR SEPARATION FROM NEWCASTLE

GENERAL

The board of directors of Newcastle has determined upon careful review and consideration in accordance with the applicable standard of review under Maryland law that the separation of New Residential’s assets from the rest of Newcastle and the establishment of New Residential as a separate, publicly traded company is in Newcastle’s best interests.

In furtherance of this plan, Newcastle will distribute all of the shares of our common stock held by Newcastle to holders of Newcastle common stock, subject to certain conditions. The distribution of the shares of our common stock will take place on May 15, 2013. On the distribution date, each holder of Newcastle common stock will receive one share of our common stock for each share of Newcastle common stock held at the close of business on the record date, as described below. Immediately following the distribution, Newcastle’s stockholders will own 100% of our common stock. You will not be required to make any payment, surrender or exchange your shares of Newcastle common stock or take any other action to receive your shares of our common stock.

The distribution of our common stock as described in this information statement is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions. We cannot provide any assurances that the distribution will be completed. For a more detailed description of these conditions, see the section entitled “—Conditions to the Distribution” included elsewhere in this information statement.

The Number of Shares You Will Receive

For each share of Newcastle common stock that you owned at the close of business on May 6, 2013, the record date, you will receive one share of our common stock on the distribution date.

Transferability of Shares You Receive

The shares of New Residential common stock distributed to Newcastle stockholders will be freely transferable, except for shares received by persons who may be deemed to be New Residential “affiliates” under the Securities Act. Persons who may be deemed to be affiliates of New Residential after the separation generally include individuals or entities that control, are controlled by or are under common control with New Residential and may include directors and certain officers or principal stockholders of New Residential. New Residential affiliates will be permitted to sell their shares of New Residential common stock only pursuant to an effective registration statement under the Securities Act or an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act, such as the exemptions afforded by Rule 144.

When and How You Will Receive the Distributed Shares

Newcastle will distribute the shares of our common stock on May 15, 2013, the distribution date. American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, will serve as distribution agent and registrar for our common stock and as distribution agent in connection with the distribution.

If you own Newcastle common stock as of the close of business on the record date, the shares of New Residential common stock that you are entitled to receive in the distribution will be issued electronically, as of the distribution date, to you or to your bank or brokerage firm on your behalf by way of direct registration in book-entry form. Registration in book-entry form refers to a method of recording stock ownership when no physical share certificates are issued to stockholders, as is the case in the distribution. Unless specifically requested by a stockholder, no physical stock certificates of New Residential will be issued.

66

Table of Contents

If you sell shares of Newcastle common stock in the “regular-way” market prior to the distribution date, you will be selling your right to receive shares of our common stock in the distribution.

For more information see the section entitled “—Market for Common Stock—Trading Between the Record Date and Distribution Date” included elsewhere in this information statement.

Commencing on or shortly after the distribution date, if you hold physical stock certificates that represent your shares of Newcastle common stock, or if you hold your shares in book-entry form, and you are the registered holder of such shares, the distribution agent will mail to you an account statement that indicates the number of shares of our common stock that have been registered in book-entry form in your name.

Most Newcastle stockholders hold their shares of Newcastle common stock through a bank or brokerage firm. In such cases, the bank or brokerage firm would be said to hold the stock in “street name” and ownership would be recorded on the bank’s or brokerage firm’s books. If you hold your Newcastle common stock through a bank or brokerage firm, your bank or brokerage firm will credit your account for the shares of our common stock that you are entitled to receive in the distribution. If you have any questions concerning the mechanics of having shares of our common stock held in “street name,” we encourage you to contact your bank or brokerage firm.

Results of the Separation

After our separation from Newcastle, we will be a separate, publicly-traded company. Immediately following the distribution, we expect to have approximately 64 stockholders of record, based on the number of registered stockholders of Newcastle common stock on April 23, 2013, and 253,025,645 shares of our common stock outstanding. The actual number of shares to be distributed will be determined on the record date and will reflect any changes in the number of shares of Newcastle common stock between April 23, 2013 and the record date for the distribution.

We have entered into a Separation and Distribution Agreement to effect the separation and provide a framework for our relationship with Newcastle after the separation. This agreement will govern the relationship between us and Newcastle subsequent to the completion of the separation plan and provide for the allocation of the New Residential assets, as well as certain liabilities related thereto, attributable to periods prior to, at and after our separation from Newcastle.

For a more detailed description of these agreements, see the section entitled “Certain Relationships and Transactions with Related Persons, Affiliates and Affiliated Entities.”

The distribution will not affect the number of outstanding shares of Newcastle common stock or any rights of Newcastle stockholders.

Incurrence of Debt

As of April 22, 2013, we had outstanding repurchase agreements with an aggregate face amount of approximately $302.0 million to finance non-Agency RMBS and approximately $1.0 billion to finance Agency RMBS. Under these agreements, we sold a security to a counterparty and concurrently agreed to repurchase the same security at a later date for a higher specified price. The sale price represents financing proceeds, and the difference between the sale and repurchase prices represents interest on the financing. The price at which the security is sold generally represents the market value of the security less a discount or “haircut,” which can range broadly, for example from 5% for Agency RMBS to between 20% and 40% for non-Agency RMBS. During the term of the repurchase agreement, which can be as short as 30 days, the counterparty holds the security as collateral. The counterparty monitors and calculates what it estimates to be the value of the collateral during the term of the agreement. If this value declines by more than a de minimis threshold, the counterparty could require us to post margin in order to maintain the initial haircut on the collateral. This margin is typically required to be posted in the form of cash and cash equivalents.

67

Table of Contents

These repurchase agreements have terms that generally conform to the terms of the standard master repurchase agreement published by SIFMA as to repayment, margin requirements and segregation of all securities sold under any repurchase transactions. In addition, each counterparty typically requires that we include supplemental terms and conditions to the standard master repurchase agreement. Typical supplemental terms and conditions include changes to the margin maintenance requirements, required haircuts, purchase price maintenance requirements, requirements that all controversies related to the repurchase agreement be litigated in a particular jurisdiction and cross default provisions. These provisions may differ for each of our counterparties and are not determined until we engage in a specific repurchase transaction.

CERTAIN U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEPARATION

The following is a summary of the material U.S. federal income tax consequences of our separation from Newcastle, and in particular the distribution by Newcastle of our common stock to stockholders of Newcastle. For purposes of this section under the heading “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Separation”: (i) any references to the “separation” shall mean only the distribution of shares of our common stock by Newcastle to stockholders of Newcastle; (ii) references to “New Residential,” “we,” “our” and “us” mean only New Residential Investment Corp. and not its subsidiaries or other lower-tier entities, except as otherwise indicated; and (iii) references to Newcastle refer to Newcastle Investment Corp. This summary is based upon the Code, the regulations promulgated by the U.S. Treasury Department, rulings and other administrative pronouncements issued by the IRS, and judicial decisions, all as currently in effect, and all of which are subject to differing interpretations or to change, possibly with retroactive effect. No assurance can be given that the IRS would not assert, or that a court would not sustain, a position contrary to any of the tax consequences described below. We have not sought and do not intend to seek an advance ruling from the IRS regarding any matter discussed herein. The summary is also based upon the assumption that Newcastle, New Residential and their respective subsidiaries and affiliated entities will operate in accordance with their applicable organizational documents or partnership agreements and the agreements and other documents applicable to our separation from Newcastle. This summary is for general information only and is not tax advice. The Code provisions governing the federal income tax treatment of REITs (such as Newcastle) and their stockholders are highly technical and complex, and this summary is qualified in its entirety by the express language of applicable Code provisions, Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder, and administrative and judicial interpretations thereof. This summary does not address all possible tax considerations that may be material to an investor and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Moreover, this summary does not purport to discuss all aspects of federal income taxation that may be important to a particular investor in light of its investment or tax circumstances, or to investors subject to special tax rules, such as:

and, except to the extent discussed below:

68

Table of Contents

This summary assumes that investors will hold their common stock as a capital asset, which generally means as property held for investment.

For purposes of this discussion under the heading “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Separation,” a domestic holder is a stockholder of Newcastle that is for federal income tax purposes:

A “non-U.S. holder” is a stockholder of Newcastle that is neither a domestic holder nor a partnership (or other entity treated as a partnership) for federal income tax purposes. If a partnership, including for this purpose any entity that is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, holds Newcastle stock, the tax treatment of a partner in the partnership will generally depend upon the status of the partner and the activities of the partnership. An investor that is a partnership and the partners in such partnership should consult their tax advisors about the U.S. federal income tax consequences of the separation.

THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX TREATMENT OF THE SEPARATION TO STOCKHOLDERS OF NEWCASTLE DEPENDS IN SOME INSTANCES ON DETERMINATIONS OF FACT AND INTERPRETATIONS OF COMPLEX PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAW FOR WHICH NO CLEAR PRECEDENT OR AUTHORITY MAY BE AVAILABLE. IN ADDITION, THE TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEPARATION TO ANY PARTICULAR STOCKHOLDER OF NEWCASTLE WILL DEPEND ON THE STOCKHOLDER’S PARTICULAR TAX CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU ARE URGED TO CONSULT YOUR TAX ADVISOR REGARDING THE FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND FOREIGN INCOME AND OTHER TAX CONSEQUENCES TO YOU OF THE SEPARATION IN LIGHT OF YOUR PARTICULAR INVESTMENT OR TAX CIRCUMSTANCES.

Tax Classification of the Separation in General

For U.S. federal income tax purposes, the separation will not be eligible for treatment as a tax-free distribution by Newcastle with respect to its stock. Accordingly, the separation will be treated as if Newcastle had distributed to each Newcastle stockholder an amount equal to the fair market value of the New Residential common stock received by such stockholder, determined as of the date of the separation (such amount, the “separation distribution amount”). The tax consequences of the separation on Newcastle’s stockholders are thus generally the same as the tax consequences of Newcastle’s cash distribution. The discussion below describes the U.S. federal income tax consequences to a domestic holder, a non-U.S. holder, and a tax-exempt holder of Newcastle stock upon the receipt of New Residential common stock in the separation.

Although Newcastle will ascribe a value to the New Residential shares distributed in the separation, this valuation is not binding on the IRS or any other tax authority. These taxing authorities could ascribe a higher valuation to the distributed New Residential shares, particularly if, following the separation, those shares trade at prices significantly above the value ascribed to those shares by Newcastle. Such a higher valuation may affect the distribution amount and thus the tax consequences of the separation to Newcastle’s stockholders.

Newcastle will be required to recognize any gain, but will not be permitted to recognize any loss, with respect to the New Residential shares that it distributes in the separation.

69

Table of Contents

Tax Basis and Holding Period of New Residential Shares Received by Holders of Newcastle Stock

A Newcastle stockholder’s tax basis in shares of New Residential common stock received in the separation generally will equal the fair market value of such shares on the date of the separation, and the holding period for such shares will begin the day after the date of the separation.

Tax Treatment of the Separation to Domestic Holders

The following discussion describes the U.S. federal income tax consequences to a domestic holder of Newcastle stock upon the receipt of New Residential common stock in the separation.

Ordinary Dividends. The portion of the separation distribution amount received by a domestic holder that is payable out of Newcastle’s current or accumulated earnings and profits and that is not designated by Newcastle as a capital gain dividend will generally be taken into account by such domestic holder as ordinary income and will not be eligible for the dividends received deduction for corporations. With limited exceptions, dividends paid by Newcastle are not eligible for taxation at the preferential income tax rates for qualified dividends received by domestic holders that are individuals, trusts and estates from taxable C corporations. Such domestic holders, however, are taxed at the preferential rates on dividends designated by and received from a REIT such as Newcastle to the extent that the dividends are attributable to

If any “excess inclusion income” (as defined for U.S. federal income tax purposes) from a taxable mortgage pool or REMIC residual interest is allocated by Newcastle to any stockholder of Newcastle, that income will be taxable in the hands of the stockholder and would not be offset by any net operating losses of the stockholder that would otherwise be available. As required by IRS guidance, Newcastle intends to notify its stockholders if a portion of a distribution paid by Newcastle is attributable to excess inclusion income.

Non-Dividends Distribution. A distribution to Newcastle’s domestic holders in excess of Newcastle’s current and accumulated earnings and profits will generally represent a return of capital and will not be taxable to a stockholder to the extent that the amount of such distribution does not exceed the adjusted basis of the holder’s Newcastle shares in respect of which the distribution was made. Rather, the distribution will reduce the adjusted basis of the holder’s shares in Newcastle. To the extent that such distribution exceeds the adjusted basis of a domestic holder’s Newcastle shares, the holder generally must include such distribution in income as long-term capital gain, or short-term capital gain if the holder’s Newcastle shares have been held for one year or less.

Capital Gain Dividends. A distribution that Newcastle designates as a capital gain dividend will generally be taxed to domestic holders as long-term capital gain, to the extent that such distribution does not exceed Newcastle’s actual net capital gain for the taxable year, without regard to the period for which the holder that receives such distribution has held its Newcastle stock. Corporate domestic holders may be required to treat up to 20% of some capital gain dividends as ordinary income. Long-term capital gains are generally taxable at reduced maximum federal rates in the case of domestic holders that are individuals, trusts and estates, and ordinary income rates in the case of stockholders that are corporations.

Tax Treatment of the Separation to Non-U.S. Holders

The following discussion describes the U.S. federal income tax consequences to a non-U.S. holder of Newcastle stock upon the receipt of New Residential common stock in the separation.

Ordinary Dividends. The portion of the separation distribution amount received by a non-U.S. holder that is (1) payable out of Newcastle’s earnings and profits, (2) not attributable to Newcastle’s capital gains, and (3) not

70

Table of Contents

effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business of the non-U.S. holder, will be treated as a dividend that is subject to U.S. withholding tax at the rate of 30%, unless reduced or eliminated by treaty. Reduced treaty rates and other exemptions are not available to the extent that income is attributable to “excess inclusion income” allocable to the non-U.S. holder. Accordingly, Newcastle will withhold at a rate of 30% on any portion of a dividend that is paid to a non-U.S. holder and is or may be treated as attributable to that non-U.S. holder’s share of Newcastle’s excess inclusion income. As required by IRS guidance, Newcastle intends to notify its stockholders if a portion of a dividend paid by it is attributable to excess inclusion income.

In general, non-U.S. holders will not be considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business solely as a result of their ownership of Newcastle stock. In cases where the dividend income from a non-U.S. holder’s investment in Newcastle stock is, or is treated as, effectively connected with the non-U.S. holder’s conduct of a U.S. trade or business, the non-U.S. holder generally will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at graduated rates, in the same manner as domestic holders are taxed with respect to such dividends. Such income must generally be reported on a U.S. income tax return filed by or on behalf of the non-U.S. holder. The income may also be subject to the 30% branch profits tax in the case of a non-U.S. holder that is a corporation.

Non-Dividend Distributions. Unless Newcastle’s stock constitutes a U.S. real property interest (“USRPI”), the separation distribution amount, to the extent not made out of Newcastle’s earnings and profits, will not be subject to U.S. income tax. If Newcastle cannot determine at the time of the separation whether or not the separation distribution amount will exceed current and accumulated earnings and profits, the separation distribution will be subject to withholding at the rate applicable to ordinary dividends, as described above.

If Newcastle’s stock constitutes a USRPI, as described below, distributions that it makes in excess of the sum of (a) the stockholder’s proportionate share of Newcastle’s earnings and profits, plus (b) the stockholder’s basis in its Newcastle stock, will be taxed under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (“FIRPTA”) in the same manner as if the Newcastle stock had been sold. In such situations, the non-U.S. holder would be required to file a U.S. federal income tax return and would be subject to the same treatment and same tax rates as a domestic holder with respect to such excess, subject to applicable alternative minimum tax and a special alternative minimum tax in the case of non-resident alien individuals.

Newcastle’s stock will not be treated as a USRPI if less than 50% of Newcastle’s assets throughout a prescribed testing period consist of interests in real property located within the U.S., excluding, for this purpose, interests in real property solely in a capacity as a creditor. It is not currently anticipated that Newcastle’s stock will constitute a USRPI. However, no assurance can be given that Newcastle’s stock will not become a USRPI.

Even if the foregoing 50% test is not met, Newcastle’s stock nonetheless will not constitute a USRPI if Newcastle is a “domestically-controlled qualified investment entity.” A domestically-controlled qualified investment entity includes a REIT, less than 50% of value of which is held directly or indirectly by non-U.S. holders at all times during a specified testing period. It is anticipated that Newcastle will be a domestically-controlled qualified investment entity, and that a distribution with respect to Newcastle’s stock in excess of Newcastle’s earnings and profits will not be subject to taxation under FIRPTA. No assurance can be given that Newcastle will remain a domestically-controlled qualified investment entity.

In the event that Newcastle is not a domestically-controlled qualified investment entity, but its stock is “regularly traded,” as defined by applicable Treasury regulations, on an established securities market, a distribution to a non-U.S. holder nonetheless would not be subject to tax under FIRPTA, provided that the non-U.S. holder held 5% or less of Newcastle’s stock at all times during a specified testing period. It is anticipated that Newcastle’s stock will be regularly traded.

In addition, if a non-U.S. holder owning more than 5% of Newcastle’s common stock disposes of such stock during the 30-day period preceding the ex-dividend date of any dividend payment by Newcastle, and such non-U.S. holder acquires or enters into a contract or option to acquire Newcastle’s common stock within 61 days

71

Table of Contents

of the first day of such 30-day period described above, and any portion of such dividend payment would, but for the disposition, be treated as USRPI capital gain (as defined below) to such non-U.S. holder under FIRPTA, then such non-U.S holder will be treated as having USRPI capital gain in an amount that, but for the disposition, would have been treated as USRPI capital gain.

Gain in respect of a non-dividend distribution that would not otherwise be subject to FIRPTA will nonetheless be taxable in the U.S. to a non-U.S. holder in two cases: (1) if the non-U.S. holder’s investment in Newcastle stock is effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business conducted by such non-U.S. holder, the non-U.S. holder will be subject to the same treatment as a domestic holder with respect to such gain, or (2) if the non-U.S. holder is a nonresident alien individual who was present in the U.S. for 183 days or more during the taxable year and has a “tax home” in the U.S., the nonresident alien individual will be subject to a 30% tax on the individual’s capital gain.

Capital Gain Dividends. Under FIRPTA, a dividend that Newcastle makes to a non-U.S. holder, to the extent attributable to gains from dispositions of USRPIs that Newcastle held directly or through pass-through subsidiaries (such gains, “USRPI capital gains”), will, except as described below, be considered effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business of the non-U.S. holder and will be subject to U.S. income tax at the rates applicable to U.S. individuals or corporations. Newcastle will be required to withhold tax equal to 35% of the maximum amount that could have been designated as a USRPI capital gain dividend. Distributions subject to FIRPTA may also be subject to a 30% branch profits tax in the hands of a non-U.S. holder that is a corporation. A distribution is not a USRPI capital gain dividend if Newcastle held an interest in the underlying asset solely as a creditor. It is not anticipated that any portion of the separation distribution amount will be attributable to USRPI capital gains. However, no assurance can be given in this regard.

Capital gain dividends received by a non-U.S. holder that are attributable to dispositions of Newcastle’s assets other than USRPIs are not subject to U.S. federal income tax, unless (1) the gain is effectively connected with the non-U.S. holder’s U.S. trade or business, in which case the non-U.S. holder would be subject to the same treatment as U.S. holders with respect to such gain, or (2) the non-U.S. holder is a nonresident alien individual who was present in the U.S. for 183 days or more during the taxable year and has a “tax home” in the U.S., in which case the non-U.S. holder will incur a 30% tax on his capital gains.

A dividend that would otherwise have been treated as a USRPI capital gain dividend will not be so treated or be subject to FIRPTA, and generally will not be treated as income that is effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business, but instead will be treated in the same manner as ordinary income dividends (discussed above), provided that (1) the dividend is received with respect to a class of stock that is regularly traded on an established securities market located in the U.S., and (2) the recipient non-U.S. holder does not own more than 5% of that class of stock at any time during the year ending on the date on which the dividend is received. Newcastle anticipates that its stock will be “regularly traded” on an established securities exchange.

Withholding of Amounts Distributable to Non-U.S. Holders in the Separation. If Newcastle is required to withhold any amounts otherwise distributable to a non-U.S. holder in the separation, Newcastle or other applicable withholding agents will collect the amount required to be withheld by reducing to cash for remittance to the IRS a sufficient portion of New Residential common stock that such non-U.S. holder would otherwise receive, and such holder may bear brokerage or other costs for this withholding procedure. A non-U.S. holder may seek a refund from the IRS of any amounts withheld if it is subsequently determined that the amounts withheld exceeded the holder’s U.S. tax liability for the year in which the separation occurred.

Tax Treatment of the Separation to Tax-Exempt Entities

Tax-exempt entities, including qualified employee pension and profit sharing trusts and individual retirement accounts, generally are exempt from federal income taxation. Such entities, however, may be subject to taxation on their unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”). While some investments in real estate may generate UBTI, the IRS has ruled that dividend distributions from a REIT to a tax-exempt entity do not constitute UBTI. Based

72

Table of Contents

on that ruling, and provided that (1) a tax-exempt stockholder has not held Newcastle stock as “debt financed property” within the meaning of the Code (i.e., where the acquisition or holding of the property is financed through a borrowing by the tax-exempt stockholder), and (2) such Newcastle stock is not otherwise used in an unrelated trade or business, the separation generally should not give rise to UBTI to a tax-exempt stockholder.

To the extent that Newcastle (or a part of Newcastle, or a disregarded subsidiary of Newcastle) is a taxable mortgage pool for U.S. federal income tax purposes, or if Newcastle holds residual interests in a REMIC, a portion of the dividends paid to a tax-exempt stockholder that is allocable to excess inclusion income may be treated as UBTI. If, however, excess inclusion income is allocable to some categories of tax-exempt stockholders that are not subject to UBTI, Newcastle might be subject to corporate level tax on such income, and, in that case, may reduce the amount of distributions to those stockholders whose ownership gave rise to the tax. As required by IRS guidance, Newcastle intends to notify its stockholders if a portion of a dividend paid by it is attributable to excess inclusion income.

Tax-exempt stockholders that are social clubs, voluntary employee benefit associations, supplemental unemployment benefit trusts, and qualified group legal services plans exempt from federal income taxation under sections 501(c)(7), (c)(9), (c)(17) and (c)(20) of the Code are subject to different UBTI rules, which generally require such stockholders to characterize distributions that Newcastle makes as UBTI.

In certain circumstances, a pension trust that owns more than 10% of Newcastle’s stock could be required to treat a percentage of the dividends as UBTI, if Newcastle is a “pension-held REIT.” Newcastle will not be a pension-held REIT unless (1) it is required to “look through” one or more of its pension stockholders in order to satisfy certain REIT requirements and (2) either (i) one pension trust owns more than 25% of the value of Newcastle’s stock, or (ii) a group of pension trusts, each individually holding more than 10% of the value of Newcastle’s stock, collectively owns more than 50% of Newcastle’s stock. Certain restrictions on ownership and transfer of Newcastle’s stock should generally prevent a tax-exempt entity from owning more than 10% of the value of Newcastle’s stock, and should generally prevent Newcastle from becoming a pension-held REIT.

Time for Determination of the Tax Impact of the Separation

The actual tax impact of the separation will be affected by a number of factors that are unknown at this time, including Newcastle’s final earnings and profits for 2013 (including as a result of the gain, if any, Newcastle recognizes in the separation), the fair market value of New Residential’s common stock on the date of the separation, the extent to which Newcastle recognizes excess inclusion income during the year of the separation and sales of FIRPTA or other capital assets. Thus, a definitive calculation of the U.S. federal income tax impact of the separation will not be possible until after the end of the 2013 calendar year. Newcastle will notify its stockholders of the tax attributes of the separation (including the separation distribution amount) on an IRS Form 1099-DIV.

MARKET FOR COMMON STOCK

There is currently no public market for our common stock. A condition to the distribution is the listing on the NYSE of our common stock. We have been approved to list our common stock on the NYSE under the symbol “NRZ.”

Trading Between the Record Date and Distribution Date

Beginning shortly before the record date and continuing up to and through the distribution date, we expect that there will be two markets in Newcastle common stock: a “regular-way” market and an “ex-distribution” market. Shares of Newcastle common stock that trade on the regular way market will trade with an entitlement to shares of our common stock distributed pursuant to the distribution. Shares that trade on the ex-distribution market will trade without an entitlement to shares of our common stock distributed pursuant to the distribution. Therefore, if you sell shares of Newcastle common stock in the “regular-way” market through the distribution date, you will

73

Table of Contents

be selling your right to receive shares of New Residential common stock in the distribution. If you own shares of Newcastle common stock at the close of business on the record date and sell those shares on the “ex-distribution” market through the distribution date, you will still receive the shares of our common stock that you would be entitled to receive pursuant to your ownership of the shares of Newcastle common stock on the record date.

Furthermore, beginning on or shortly before the record date and continuing up to and through the distribution date, we expect that there will be a “when-issued” market in our common stock. “When-issued” trading refers to a sale or purchase made conditionally because the security has been authorized but not yet issued. The “when-issued” trading market will be a market for shares of our common stock that will be distributed to Newcastle stockholders on the distribution date. If you owned shares of Newcastle common stock at the close of business on the record date, you would be entitled to shares of our common stock distributed pursuant to the distribution. You may trade this entitlement to shares of our common stock, without trading the shares of Newcastle common stock you own, on the “when-issued” market. On the first trading day following the distribution date, “when-issued” trading with respect to our common stock will end and “regular-way” trading will begin.

CONDITIONS TO THE DISTRIBUTION

We expect that the distribution will occur on May 15, 2013, the distribution date, provided that, among other conditions described in this information statement, the following conditions shall have been satisfied:

Newcastle has the right not to complete the distribution if, at any time, the board of directors of Newcastle determines, in its sole discretion, that the distribution is not in the best interests of Newcastle or that market conditions are such that it is not advisable to separate New Residential from Newcastle.

REASONS FOR THE SEPARATION

Newcastle’s board of directors periodically reviews strategic alternatives. The board determined upon careful review and consideration in accordance with the applicable standard of review under Maryland law that the separation of New Residential is in the best interests of Newcastle. The board’s determination was based on a number of factors, including those set forth below:

74

Table of Contents

The anticipated benefits of the separation are based on a number of assumptions, and there can be no assurance that such benefits will materialize to the extent anticipated or at all. In the event that the separation does not result in such benefits, the costs associated with the transaction, including an expected increase in management compensation and general and administrative expenses, could have a negative effect on our financial condition and ability to make distributions to our stockholders. For more information about the risks associated with the separation, see “Risk Factors.”

REASONS FOR FURNISHING THIS INFORMATION STATEMENT

This information statement is being furnished solely to provide information to Newcastle stockholders who are entitled to receive shares of New Residential common stock in the distribution. The information statement is not, and is not to be construed as, an inducement or encouragement to buy, hold or sell any of our securities or securities of Newcastle. We believe that the information in this information statement is accurate as of the date set forth on the cover. Changes may occur after that date and neither Newcastle nor we undertake any obligation to update such information.

75

Table of Contents

DISTRIBUTION POLICY

We intend to make regular quarterly distributions of all or substantially all of our taxable income to holders of our common stock out of assets legally available therefore. To qualify as a REIT we must distribute annually to our stockholders an amount at least equal to:

We will be subject to income tax on our taxable income that is not distributed and to an excise tax to the extent that certain percentages of our taxable income are not distributed by specified dates. See “Federal Income Tax Considerations—Taxation of New Residential—Annual Distribution Requirements.” Income as computed for purposes of the foregoing tax rules will not necessarily correspond to our income as determined for financial reporting purposes.

Distributions will be authorized by our board of directors and declared by us based upon a number of factors, including actual results of operations, restrictions under Delaware law or applicable debt covenants, our financial condition, our taxable income, the annual distribution requirements under the REIT provisions of the Code, our operating expenses and other factors our directors deem relevant. Our ability to make distributions to our stockholders will depend upon the performance of our asset portfolio, and, in turn, upon our Manager’s management of our business. Distributions will be made in cash to the extent that cash is available for distribution. We may not be able to generate sufficient net interest income to pay distributions to our stockholders. In addition, our board of directors may change our distribution policy in the future. See “Risk Factors.”

Distributions to stockholders will generally be taxable to our stockholders as ordinary income. However, a portion of such distributions may be designated by us as long-term capital gain to the extent that such portion is attributable to our sale of capital assets held for more than one year. If we pay distributions in excess of our current and accumulated earnings and profits, such distributions will be treated as a tax-free return of capital to the extent of each stockholder’s tax basis in our common stock and as capital gain thereafter. We will furnish annually to each of our stockholders a statement setting forth distributions paid during the preceding year and their U.S. federal income tax status. For a discussion of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of our distributions, see “Federal Income Tax Considerations—Taxation of New Residential” and “Federal Income Tax Considerations—Taxation of Stockholders.”

Our certificate of incorporation will allow us to issue preferred stock that could have a preference on distributions. We currently have no intention to issue any preferred stock, but if we do, the distribution preference on the preferred stock could limit our ability to make distributions to the holders of our common stock.

To the extent that our cash available for distribution is less than the amount required to be distributed under the REIT provisions of the Code, we may consider various funding sources to cover any such shortfall, including borrowing under available debt facilities, selling certain of our assets or using a portion of the net proceeds we receive in future offerings. Our distribution policy enables us to review the alternative funding sources available to us from time to time.

76

Table of Contents

SELECTED HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL INFORMATION

We were formed in September 2011 as NIC MSR LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of Newcastle. We converted to a Delaware corporation and changed our name to New Residential Investment Corp. in December 2012. Since the commencement of our operations on December 8, 2011, we have acquired investments in Excess MSRs on five pools of mortgage loans and non-Agency RMBS through December 31, 2012.

The following table presents our selected historical financial information for the period from the commencement of our operations on December 8, 2011 through December 31, 2011 and for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The selected historical consolidated statements of income for the year ended December 31, 2012 and the period from December 8, 2011 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2011 and the selected historical consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 have been derived from our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this information statement. Operating results for the periods presented are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2013 or for any future period.

77

Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

GENERAL

New Residential will be a newly listed public REIT primarily focused on investing in residential mortgage related assets. We will be externally managed by an affiliate of Fortress. Our goal is to drive strong risk-adjusted returns primarily through investments in residential real estate related investments including, but not limited to, Excess MSRs, RMBS and residential mortgage loans. New Residential’s investment guidelines will be purposefully broad to enable us to make investments in a wide array of assets, including mortgage servicing advances and non-real estate related assets such as consumer loans. We will generally target assets that generate significant current cash flows and/or have the potential for meaningful capital appreciation. We will aim to generate attractive returns for our stockholders without excessive use of financial leverage.

Our initial holdings will include all of Newcastle’s co-investments in Excess MSRs, a portion of its Agency RMBS, all of the non-Agency RMBS it has acquired (other than through securitization vehicles) since the beginning of 2012, all mortgage loans acquired since the beginning of 2013 and all consumer loans it has acquired. Our initial holdings may also include other investments in residential mortgage related, or other, assets that Newcastle could make and contribute to us prior to the distribution. A majority of our assets will consist of qualifying real estate assets for purposes of Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, including investments in Agency RMBS. After the distribution, our asset allocation and target assets may change over time, depending on our Manager’s investment decisions in light of prevailing market conditions. The assets in our initial portfolio are described in more detail below under “—Results of Operations—Initial Portfolio.”

Market Opportunity and Target Assets

We believe that unfolding developments in the U.S. residential housing market are generating significant investment opportunities. The U.S. residential market is vast: the value of the housing market totaled $18 trillion as of December 31, 2012, including approximately $10 trillion of outstanding mortgages, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. In the aftermath of the U.S. financial crisis, the residential mortgage industry is undergoing major structural changes that are transforming the way mortgages are originated, owned and serviced. We believe these changes are creating a compelling set of investment opportunities.

We also believe that New Residential is one of only a select number of market participants that have the combination of capital, industry expertise and key business relationships we think are necessary to take advantage of this opportunity. We intend to focus on the investment opportunities described below, as well as other opportunities that may arise as the residential mortgage market evolves.

Excess MSRs

In our view, the mortgage servicing sector presents a number of compelling investment opportunities. An MSR provides a mortgage servicer with the right to service a pool of mortgages in exchange for a portion of the interest payments made on the underlying mortgages. This amount typically ranges from 25 to 50 bps times the UPB of the mortgages. Approximately 83% of MSRs are currently owned by banks. We expect this number to decline as banks face pressure to reduce their MSR exposure as a result of heightened capital reserve requirements under Basel III, regulatory scrutiny and a more challenging servicing environment.

As banks sell MSRs, there is an opportunity for entities such as New Residential to participate through co-investment in the corresponding Excess MSRs. An MSR is made up of two components: a basic fee and an Excess MSR. The basic fee is the amount of compensation for the performance of servicing duties, and the Excess MSR is the amount that exceeds the basic fee. For example, if an MSR is 30 bps and the basic fee is 5 bps, then the Excess MSR is 25 bps. As the owner of an Excess MSR, we are not required to assume any servicing duties, advance obligations or liabilities associated with the portfolios underlying our investment.

78

Table of Contents

There are a number of reasons why we believe Excess MSRs are a compelling investment opportunity:

As a wholly owned subsidiary of Newcastle, New Residential pioneered investments in Excess MSRs. We believe it remains the most active REIT in the sector. For details about New Residential’s investments in Excess MSRs, see “—Results of Operations—Initial Portfolio—Excess MSRs” below.

RMBS

RMBS are securities created through the securitization of a pool of residential mortgage loans. Currently, approximately $6 trillion of the $10 trillion of residential mortgages outstanding has been securitized, according to Inside Mortgage Finance as of June 2012. Of the securitized mortgages, approximately $5 trillion are Agency RMBS, which are RMBS issued or guaranteed by a U.S. Government agency, such as Ginnie Mae, or by a GSE, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The balance has been securitized by either public or private trusts (“private label securitizations”), and these securities are referred to as non-Agency RMBS. For more information about the securitization market, see “Business—Mortgage Industry—Overview” included elsewhere in this information statement.

We invest in Agency RMBS, which we believe complement our Excess MSR and non-Agency RMBS investments. Agency RMBS offer more stable cash flows and historically have been subject to lower credit risk and greater price stability than the other types of residential mortgage investments we intend to target. For details about New Residential investments in Agency RMBS see “Business—Market Opportunity and Target Assets—RMBS—Agency RMBS” included elsewhere in this information statement.

Since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007, there has been significant volatility in the prices for non-Agency RMBS. This has resulted from a widespread contraction in capital available for this asset class, deteriorating housing fundamentals, and an increase in forced selling by institutional investors (often in response to rating agency downgrades). While the prices of these assets have started to recover from their lows, we believe a meaningful gap still exists between current prices and the recovery value of many non-Agency RMBS.

79

Table of Contents

Accordingly, we believe there are opportunities to acquire non-Agency RMBS at attractive risk-adjusted yields, with the potential for meaningful upside if the U.S. economy and housing market continue to strengthen. We believe the value of existing non-Agency RMBS may also rise if the number of buyers returns to pre-2007 levels. Furthermore, we believe that in many non-Agency RMBS vehicles there is a meaningful discrepancy between the value of the non-Agency RMBS and the value of the underlying collateral. We intend to pursue opportunities to structure transactions that would enable us to realize this difference. For details about New Residential’s investments in Non-Agency RMBS, see “—Results of Operations—Initial Portfolio—Non-Agency RMBS” below.

The non-Agency RMBS we may acquire could be secured by fixed-rate mortgages, adjustable-rate mortgages or hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages. The mortgage loan collateral may be classified as “conforming” or “nonconforming,” depending on a variety of factors. For more information about these categories, see “Business—Mortgage Industry—Segments of the Residential Mortgage Loan Market” included elsewhere in this information statement.

APPLICATION OF CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires the use of estimates and assumptions that could affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses. Actual results could differ from these estimates. Management believes that the estimates and assumptions utilized in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements are prudent and reasonable. Actual results historically have been in line with management’s estimates and judgments used in applying each of the accounting policies described below, as modified periodically to reflect current market conditions. Our critical accounting policies will be expanded over time as we fully implement our strategy. The following is a summary of our accounting policies that are most affected by judgments, estimates and assumptions and that we initially expect to be most critical to an investor’s understanding of our financial results and conditions.

Excess MSRs

Upon acquisition, we elected to record each investment in Excess MSRs at fair value. We elected to record our investments in Excess MSRs at fair value in order to provide users of the financial statements with better information regarding the prepayment risk and other market factors on the Excess MSRs.

GAAP establishes a framework for measuring fair value of financial instruments and a set of related disclosure requirements. A three-level valuation hierarchy has been established based on the transparency of inputs to the valuation of a financial instrument as of the measurement date. The three levels are defined as follows:

Level 1—Quoted prices in active markets for identical instruments.

Level 2—Valuations based principally on other observable market parameters, including:

Level 3—Valuations based significantly on unobservable inputs.

80

Table of Contents

The level in the fair value hierarchy within which a fair value measurement or disclosure in its entirety is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement or disclosure in its entirety.

Our Excess MSRs will be categorized as Level 3 under the GAAP hierarchy. The inputs used in the valuation of Excess MSRs include prepayment speed, delinquency rate, recapture rate, excess mortgage servicing amount and discount rate. The determination of estimated cash flows used in pricing models is inherently subjective and imprecise. The methods used to estimate fair value may not result in an amount that is indicative of net realizable value or reflective of future fair values. Changes in market conditions, as well as changes in the assumptions or methodology used to determine fair value, could result in a significant increase or decrease in fair value. Management validates the inputs and outputs of our models by comparing them to available independent third party market parameters and models for reasonableness. We believe the assumptions we use are within the range that a market participant would use, and factor in the liquidity conditions in the markets. Any changes to the valuation methodology will be reviewed by management to ensure the changes are appropriate.

In order to evaluate the reasonableness of its fair value determinations, management engages an independent valuation firm to separately measure the fair value of its Excess MSRs. The independent valuation firm determines an estimated fair value range based on its own models and issues a “fairness opinion” with this range. Management compares the range included in the opinion to the value generated by its internal models. For Excess MSRs acquired prior to the current quarter, the fairness opinion relates to the valuation at the current quarter end date. For Excess MSRs acquired during the current quarter, the fairness opinion relates to the valuation at the time of acquisition. To date, New Residential has not made any significant valuation adjustments as a result of these fairness opinions.

For Excess MSRs acquired during the current quarter, New Residential revalues the Excess MSRs at the quarter end date if a payment is received between the acquisition date and the end of the quarter. Otherwise, Excess MSRs acquired during the current quarter are carried at their amortized cost basis if there has been no change in assumptions since acquisition.

Investments in Excess MSRs are aggregated into pools as applicable; each pool of Excess MSRs is accounted for in the aggregate. Interest income for Excess MSRs is accreted using an effective yield or “interest” method, based upon the expected income from the Excess MSRs through the expected life of the underlying mortgages. Changes to expected cash flows result in a cumulative retrospective adjustment, which will be recorded in the period in which the change in expected cash flows occurs. Under the retrospective method, the interest income recognized for a reporting period would be measured as the difference between the amortized cost basis at the end of the period and the amortized cost basis at the beginning of the period, plus any cash received during the period. The amortized cost basis is calculated as the present value of estimated future cash flows using an effective yield, which is the yield that equates all past actual and current estimated future cash flows to the initial investment. In addition, our policy is to recognize interest income only on Excess MSRs in existing eligible underlying mortgages.

Under the fair value election, the difference between the fair value of Excess MSRs and their amortized cost basis is recorded as “Change in fair value of investments in excess mortgage servicing rights,” as applicable. Fair value is generally determined by discounting the expected future cash flows using discount rates that incorporate the market risks and liquidity premium specific to the Excess MSRs, and therefore may differ from their effective yields.

RMBS

Our non-Agency and Agency RMBS are classified as available-for-sale. As such, they will be carried at fair value, with net unrealized gains or losses reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income, to the extent impairment losses are considered temporary, as described below.

We expect that any RMBS we acquire will be categorized under Level 2 or Level 3 of the GAAP hierarchy described above under “—Application of Critical Account Policies—Excess MSRs,” depending on the

81

Table of Contents

observability of the inputs. Fair value may be based upon broker quotations, counterparty quotations, pricing services quotations or internal pricing models. The significant inputs used in the valuation of our securities may include the discount rate, prepayment speeds, default rates and loss severities, as well as other variables.

The determination of estimated cash flows used in pricing models is inherently subjective and imprecise. The methods to estimate fair value may not be indicative of net realizable value or reflective of future fair values. Changes in market conditions, as well as changes in the assumptions or methodology used to determine fair value, could result in a significant increase or decrease in fair value. Management validates the inputs and outputs of our models by comparing them to available independent third party market parameters and models for reasonableness. We believe the assumptions we use are within the range that a market participant would use, and factor in the liquidity conditions in the markets. Any changes to the valuation methodology will be reviewed by management to ensure the changes are appropriate.

Pursuant to ASC 320-10-35, we must also assess whether unrealized losses on securities, if any, reflect a decline in value that is other-than-temporary and, if so, record an other-than-temporary impairment through earnings. A decline in value is deemed to be other-than-temporary if (i) it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of a security that was not impaired at acquisition (there is an expected credit loss), or (ii) if we have the intent to sell a security in an unrealized loss position or it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell a security in an unrealized loss position prior to its anticipated recovery (if any). For the purposes of performing this analysis, we will assume the anticipated recovery period is until the expected maturity of the applicable security. Also, for securities that represent beneficial interests in securitized financial assets within the scope of ASC 325-40, whenever there is a probable adverse change in the timing or amounts of estimated cash flows of a security from the cash flows previously projected, an other-than-temporary impairment will be deemed to have occurred. Our non-Agency RMBS acquired with evidence of deteriorated credit quality for which it was probable, at acquisition, that we would be unable to collect all contractually required payments receivable, fall within the scope of ASC 310-30, as opposed to ASC 325-40. All of our other non-Agency RMBS, those not acquired with evidence of deteriorated credit quality, fall within the scope of ASC 325-40.

Pursuant to ASC 835-30-35, income on these securities is recognized using a level yield methodology based upon a number of cash flow assumptions that are subject to uncertainties and contingencies. Such assumptions will include the rate and timing of principal and interest receipts (which may be subject to prepayments and defaults). These assumptions will be updated on at least a quarterly basis to reflect changes related to a particular security, actual historical data, and market changes. These uncertainties and contingencies are difficult to predict and are subject to future events, and economic and market conditions, which may alter the assumptions. For securities acquired at a discount for credit losses, we will recognize the excess of all cash flows expected over our investment in the securities as Interest Income on a “loss adjusted yield” basis. The loss-adjusted yield will be determined based on an evaluation of the credit status of securities, as described in connection with the analysis of impairment above.

Loans

We invest in loans, including but not limited to, residential mortgage loans. Loans for which we have the intent and ability to hold for the foreseeable future, or until maturity or payoff, are classified as held-for-investment. Loans are presented in the consolidated balance sheet net of any unamortized discount (or gross of any unamortized premium). We determine at acquisition whether loans will be aggregated into pools based on common risk characteristics (credit quality, loan type, and date of origination or acquisition); loans aggregated into pools are accounted for as if each pool were a single loan.

Income on these loans is recognized similarly to that on our securities using a level yield methodology and is subject to similar uncertainties and contingencies, which are also analyzed on at least a quarterly basis.

82

Table of Contents

Impairment of Loans

To the extent that they are classified as held-for-investment, we must periodically evaluate each of these loans or loan pools for possible impairment. Impairment is indicated when it is deemed probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan, or for loans acquired at a discount for credit losses, when it is deemed probable that we will be unable to collect as anticipated. Upon determination of impairment, we would establish a specific valuation allowance with a corresponding charge to earnings. We continually evaluate our loans receivable for impairment. Our residential mortgage loans are aggregated into pools for evaluation based on like characteristics, such as loan type and acquisition date. Pools of loans are evaluated based on criteria such as an analysis of borrower performance, credit ratings of borrowers, loan to value ratios, the estimated value of the underlying collateral, the key terms of the loans and historical and anticipated trends in defaults and loss severities for the type and seasoning of loans being evaluated. This information is used to estimate provisions for estimated unidentified incurred losses on pools of loans. Significant judgment is required in determining impairment and in estimating the resulting loss allowance. Furthermore, we must assess our intent and ability to hold our loan investments on a periodic basis. If we do not have the intent to hold a loan for the foreseeable future or until its expected payoff, the loan must be classified as “held for sale” and recorded at the lower of cost or estimated value.

Derivatives

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we may utilize a variety of derivative instruments, including interest rate swap agreements, interest rate cap agreements or other derivative instruments, to manage our interest rate risk. Derivative instruments are required to be recorded on the balance sheet at fair value. Fair value will be based on counterparty quotations. The fair value of derivative instruments will be recorded gross of cash paid or received pursuant to credit support agreements, and fair value will be reflected on a net by counterparty basis when we believe a legal right of offset exists under an enforceable netting agreement. To the extent they are designated and qualify as cash flow hedges, net unrealized gains or losses will be reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income; otherwise, the net unrealized gains and losses will be reported in earnings. To the extent they are designated and qualify as fair value hedges, net unrealized gains or losses on both the derivative and the related portion of the hedged item will be reported currently in earnings. To the extent they are not designated as hedges or do not qualify for hedge accounting, net unrealized gains or losses will be reported in earnings. Fair values of derivatives are subject to significant variability, including counterparty credit risk. The results of such variability, the effectiveness of our hedging strategies and the extent to which a forecasted hedged transaction remains probable of occurring, could result in a significant increase or decrease in our GAAP equity and/or earnings.

Investment Consolidation

The analysis as to whether to consolidate an entity is subject to a significant amount of judgment. Some of the criteria considered are the determination as to the degree of control over an entity by its various equity holders, the design of the entity, how closely related the entity is to each of its equity holders, the relation of the equity holders to each other and a determination of the primary beneficiary in entities in which we have a variable interest. These analyses involve estimates, based on the assumptions of management, as well as judgments regarding significance and the design of entities.

Variable interest entities (“VIEs”) are defined as entities in which equity investors do not have the characteristics of a controlling financial interest or do not have sufficient equity at risk for the entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support from other parties. A VIE is required to be consolidated by its primary beneficiary, and only by its primary beneficiary, which is defined as the party who has the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact its economic performance and who has the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE.

Our investments in non-Agency RMBS are variable interests. We monitor these investments and analyze the potential need to consolidate the related securitization entities pursuant to the VIE consolidation requirements.

83

Table of Contents

These analyses require considerable judgment in determining whether an entity is a VIE and determining the primary beneficiary of a VIE since they involve subjective determinations of significance, with respect to both power and economics. The result could be the consolidation of an entity that otherwise would not have been consolidated or the de-consolidation of an entity that otherwise would have been consolidated.

We have not consolidated the securitization entities that issued our non-Agency RMBS. This determination is based, in part, on our assessment that we do not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of these entities, such as if we owned a majority of the currently controlling class. In addition, we are not obligated to provide, and have not provided, any financial support to these entities.

We have not consolidated the entities in which we hold a 50% interest that made an investment in Excess MSRs. We have determined that the decisions that most significantly impact the economic performance of these entities will be made collectively by us and the other investor in the entities. In addition, these entities have sufficient equity to permit the entities to finance their activities without additional subordinated financial support. Based on our analysis, these entities do not meet any of the VIE criteria under ASC 810-10-15-14.

We have not consolidated the entities that made the investment in consumer loans. We hold a 30% interest in these entities. We have determined that the managing member, Springleaf, makes the decisions that most significantly impact the economic performance of these entities. Although, the voting rights in the entity are not proportional to the investors’ obligations to absorb the expected losses of the entities and their rights to receive the expected residual returns of the entities, substantially all of the entities’ activities are not conducted on behalf of either us or Blackstone. In addition, there is sufficient equity to finance the entities’ activities without additional subordinated financial support. Based on our analysis, these entities do not meet any of the VIE criteria under ASC 810-10-15-14.

Investments in Equity Method Investees

We account for our interests in entities over which we exercise significant influence, but with respect to which the requirements for consolidation are not met, as investments in equity method investees. These investments are recorded based on the equity method of accounting, unless we elect to measure them at fair value.

Our investment in equity method investees that own consumer loans will be accounted for based on the equity method of accounting. Pursuant to ASC 825-10-25, we have elected to measure our investments in equity method investees which are invested in Excess MSRs at fair value. The equity method investees have also elected to measure their investments in Excess MSRs at fair value pursuant to ASC 825-10-25.

Income Taxes

Our financial results are generally not expected to reflect provisions for current or deferred income taxes. We intend to operate in a manner that will allow us to qualify for taxation as a REIT. As a result of our expected REIT qualification, we do not generally expect to pay U.S. federal or state and local corporate level taxes. Many of the REIT requirements, however, are highly technical and complex. If we were to fail to meet the REIT requirements, we would be subject to U.S. federal, state and local income and franchise taxes.

RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In May 2011, the FASB issued new guidance regarding the measurement and disclosure of fair value, which become effective on January 1, 2012. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

In June 2011, the FASB issued a new accounting standard that eliminates the current option to report other comprehensive income and its components in the statement of stockholders’ equity. Instead, an entity will be

84

Table of Contents

required to present items of net income and other comprehensive income in one continuous statement or in two separate, but consecutive, statements. We early-adopted this accounting standard in 2011 and opted to present two separate statements.

In February 2013, the FASB issued new guidance regarding the reporting of reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income. The new guidance does not change current requirements for reporting net income or other comprehensive income in the financial statements. However, it requires companies to present the effects on the line items of net income of significant amounts reclassified out of accumulated OCI if the item reclassified is required to be reclassified to net income in its entirety during the same reporting period. Presentation should occur either on the face of the income statement where net income is presented, or in the notes to the financial statements. New Residential has early adopted this accounting standard and opted to present this information in a note to the financial statements.

The FASB has recently issued or discussed a number of proposed standards on such topics as consolidation, the definition of an investment company, financial statement presentation, revenue recognition, financial instruments, hedging, and contingencies. Some of the proposed changes are significant and could have a material impact on our financial reporting. We will evaluate the potential impact of these proposals as the standards are finalized.

We are an emerging growth company as defined in the JOBS Act, and we have irrevocably elected not to take advantage of the delayed adoption of new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies. We will therefore be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS