Braemar Hotels & Resorts (BHR) Risk Analysis

Unless we purchase a fee interest in the land and improvements subject to our ground leases, we will not have any economic interest in the land or improvements at the expiration of our ground leases. As a result, we will not share in any increase in value of the land or improvements beyond the term of a ground lease, notwithstanding our capital outlay to purchase our interest in the hotel or fund improvements thereon, and will lose our right to use the hotel. Furthermore, if the state or federal government seizes a hotel subject to a ground lease under its eminent domain power, we may only be entitled to a portion of any compensation awarded for the seizure.

Until its spin-off on November 12, 2014, Ashford LLC was a subsidiary of Ashford Trust, a publicly-traded hotel REIT, with investment objectives that are similar to ours. So long as Ashford LLC is our external advisor, our governing documents require us to include persons designated by Ashford LLC as candidates for election as director at any stockholder meeting at which directors are to be elected, as described in our governing documents. Each of our executive officers and one of our directors also serve as employees and/or officers of Ashford LLC. In addition each of our officers, other than Mr. Richard Stockton, and one of our directors serve as officers and/or directors of Ashford Trust. Furthermore, Mr. Monty J. Bennett, our previous chief executive officer and current chairman, is also the chairman of Ashford Trust and the chairman, chief executive officer and a significant stockholder of Ashford Inc. Our advisory agreement requires Ashford LLC to present investments that satisfy our investment guidelines to us before presenting them to Ashford Trust or any future client of Ashford LLC. Our board may modify or supplement our investment guidelines from time to time so long as we do not change our investment guidelines in such a way as to be directly competitive with all or any portion of Ashford Trust's investment guidelines as of the date of the advisory agreement. If we materially change our investment guidelines without the express consent of Ashford LLC, then Ashford LLC will not have an obligation to present investment opportunities to us and instead Ashford LLC will use its best judgment to allocate investment opportunities and other entities it advises, taking into account such factors as Ashford LLC deems relevant, in its discretion, subject to any then-existing obligations of Ashford LLC to such other entities. However, some portfolio investment opportunities may include hotels that satisfy our investment objectives as well as hotels that satisfy the investment objectives of Ashford Trust or other entities advised by Ashford LLC. If the portfolio cannot be equitably divided, Ashford LLC will necessarily have to make a determination as to which entity will be presented with the opportunity. In such a circumstance, our advisory agreement requires Ashford LLC to allocate portfolio investment opportunities between us and Ashford Trust or other entities advised by Ashford LLC in a fair and equitable manner, consistent with our, Ashford Trust's and such other entities' investment objectives. In making this determination, Ashford LLC, using substantial discretion, is required to consider the investment strategy and guidelines of each entity with respect to acquisition of properties, portfolio concentrations, tax consequences, regulatory restrictions, liquidity requirements, leverage and other factors deemed appropriate. In making the allocation determination, Ashford LLC has no obligation to make any such investment opportunity available to us. Ashford LLC and Ashford Trust have agreed that any new investment opportunities that satisfy our investment guidelines will be presented to our board of directors; however, our board will have only ten business days to make a determination with respect to such opportunity prior to it being available to Ashford Trust. The above mentioned dual responsibilities may create conflicts of interest for our officers that could result in decisions or allocations of investments that may benefit Ashford Trust more than they benefit our company, and Ashford Trust may compete with us with respect to certain investments that we may want to acquire.

Remington Hospitality, a subsidiary of Ashford Inc., currently manages the Pier House Resort & Spa, the Bardessono Hotel and Spa, Hotel Yountville, Cameo Beverly Hills, and Sofitel Chicago Magnificent Mile. We expect Remington Hospitality will manage certain of the hotels we acquire in the future. Premier, also a subsidiary of Ashford Inc., currently provides design and construction services to us. We expect Premier will also provide design and construction services to us in the future. Conflicts of interest in general and specifically relating to Remington Hospitality and Premier may lead to management decisions that are not in our stockholders' best interest. As of December 31, 2025, Mr. Monty J. Bennett, chairman of our board of directors and chairman, chief executive officer and a significant stockholder of Ashford Inc. and Mr. Archie Bennett, Jr. together owned approximately 809,937 shares of Ashford Inc. common stock, which represented an approximate 51.9% ownership interest in Ashford Inc., and owned 18,758,600 shares of Ashford Inc. Series D Convertible Preferred Stock, which, along with all unpaid accrued and accumulated dividends thereon, was convertible (at a conversion price of $117.50 per share) into an additional approximate 4,573,359 shares of Ashford Inc. common stock, which if converted as of December 31, 2025 would have increased the Bennetts' ownership interest in Ashford Inc. to 87.8%. The 18,758,600 shares of Series D Convertible Preferred Stock owned by Mr. Monty J. Bennett and Mr. Archie Bennett, Jr. include 360,000 shares owned by trusts. Additionally, Mr. Monty J. Bennett acquired the right to direct votes, effective March 25, 2025, and as of December 31, 2025, those rights represented approximately 551,000 common shares. We have entered into a hotel management MEA and a master hotel management agreement with Remington Hospitality and a project management MEA and master project management agreement with Premier. To the extent we have the right or control the right to direct such matters, the hotel management MEA requires us to engage Remington Hospitality to provide, under the master hotel management agreement, hotel management services for all future properties that we acquire, unless our independent directors either (i) unanimously vote not to hire Remington Hospitality, or (ii) based on special circumstances or past performance, by a majority vote, elect not to engage Remington Hospitality because they have determined, in their reasonable business judgment, that it would be in our best interest not to engage Remington Hospitality or that another manager or developer could perform the duties materially better. The project management MEA and master project management agreement with Premier contains similar provisions. A beneficial owner of a significant position in Ashford Inc. would receive (through Premier) any project management and termination fees payable by us under the master project management agreement. Mr. Monty J. Bennett may influence our decisions to sell, acquire, or develop hotels when it is not in the best interest of our stockholders to do so. Mr. Monty J. Bennett's ownership interests in and management obligations to Ashford Inc. present him with conflicts of interest in making management decisions related to the commercial arrangements between us and Ashford Inc., and his management obligations to Ashford Inc. reduce the time and effort he spends overseeing our company. Our board of directors has adopted a policy that requires all material approvals, actions or decisions which we have the right to make under the master hotel management agreement with Remington Hospitality and the master project management agreement with Premier be approved by a majority or, in certain circumstances, all, of our independent directors. However, given the authority and/or operational latitude provided to Remington Hospitality under the master hotel management agreement and to Premier under the master project management agreement, Mr. Monty J. Bennett, as the chairman and chief executive officer of Ashford Inc., could take actions or make decisions that are not in our stockholders' best interest or that are otherwise inconsistent with his obligations to us under the master hotel management agreement or our obligations under the applicable franchise agreements or his obligations to us under the master project management agreement.

As the general partner of our operating partnership, we have fiduciary duties to the other limited partners in our operating partnership, the discharge of which may conflict with the interests of our stockholders. The limited partners of our operating partnership have agreed that, if a conflict in the fiduciary duties owed by us to our stockholders and, in our capacity as general partner of our operating partnership, to such limited partners, we are under no obligation to give priority to the interests of such limited partners. In addition, persons holding common units have the right to vote on certain amendments to the operating partnership agreement (which require approval by a majority in interest of the limited partners, including us) and individually to approve certain amendments that would adversely affect their rights. These voting rights may be exercised in a manner that conflicts with the interests of our stockholders. For example, we cannot modify the rights of limited partners to receive distributions as set forth in the operating partnership agreement in a manner that adversely affects their rights without their consent, even though such modification might be in the best interest of our stockholders. In addition, conflicts may arise when the interests of our stockholders and the limited partners of our operating partnership diverge, particularly in circumstances in which there may be an adverse tax consequence to the limited partners. As a result of unrealized built-in gain attributable to contributed property at the time of contribution, some holders of common units may suffer different and more adverse tax consequences than holders of our common stock upon the sale or refinancing of the properties owned by our operating partnership, including disproportionately greater allocations of items of taxable income and gain upon a realization event. As those holders will not receive a correspondingly greater distribution of cash proceeds, they may have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing, timing and other material terms of any sale or refinancing of certain properties, or whether to sell or refinance such properties at all. As a result, Ashford LLC may cause us to sell, not sell or refinance certain properties, even if such actions or inactions might be financially advantageous to our stockholders, or to enter into tax deferred exchanges with the proceeds of such sales when such a reinvestment might not otherwise be in our best interest.

We have adopted a conflicts of interest policy to address specifically some of the conflicts relating to our activities which requires the approval of a majority of our disinterested directors to approve any transaction, agreement or relationship in which any of our directors or officers, Ashford LLC or its employees or Ashford Trust has an interest. In connection with this policy, our board of directors has established a Related Party Transactions Committee (consisting of Mr. Rinaldi and Ms. Carter), which is empowered to deny a new proposed interested party transaction or recommend the transaction for approval by a majority of the independent directors. Our policies, however, may not be adequate to address all of the conflicts that may arise. In addition, it may not address such conflicts in a manner that is favorable to us.

Particularly following periods of volatility in the overall market or declines in the market price of the company's securities, REITs, including us, have been targets of stockholder litigation, stockholder director nominations and stockholder proposals by dissident stockholders that allege conflicts of interest in business dealings with affiliated and related persons and entities. Our relationships with Ashford LLC, Ashford Inc., Ashford Trust, the other businesses and entities to which Ashford LLC and Ashford Inc. provide management or other services, Mr. Monty J. Bennett, Mr. Archie Bennett, Jr. and with other related parties of Ashford Inc. and Ashford Trust may precipitate such activities. These activities, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management's attention even if the action is unfounded. Responding to actions by activist investors can be costly and time-consuming, disrupting our operations and diverting the attention of management and our employees. Stockholder activism could create perceived uncertainties as to our future direction, which could result in the loss of potential business opportunities and make it more difficult for our Advisor to attract and retain qualified personnel and business partners. Furthermore, the election of individuals to our board of directors with a specific agenda could adversely affect our ability to effectively and timely implement our strategic plans.

Our charter contains 9.8% ownership limits. For the purpose of preserving our REIT qualification, our charter prohibits direct or constructive ownership by any person of more than: - 9.8% of the lesser of the total number or value of the outstanding shares of our common stock, or - 9.8% of the lesser of the total number or value of the outstanding shares of any class or series of our preferred stock or any other stock of our company, unless our board of directors grants a waiver. Our charter's constructive ownership rules are complex and may cause stock owned actually or constructively by a group of related individuals and/or entities to be deemed to be constructively owned by one individual or entity. As a result, the acquisition of less than 9.8% of our common stock by an individual or entity could nevertheless cause that individual or entity to own constructively in excess of 9.8% of the outstanding common stock, and thus be subject to our charter's ownership limit. Any attempt to own or transfer shares of our common stock in excess of the ownership limit without the consent of our board of directors will be void, and could result in the shares being automatically transferred to a charitable trust.

Our charter authorizes our board of directors to issue common stock or preferred stock in one or more classes and to establish the preferences and rights of any class of common stock or preferred stock issued. Subject to the terms of any outstanding classes or series of preferred stock, these actions can be taken without obtaining stockholder approval. Our issuance of additional classes of common stock or preferred stock could have the effect of delaying or preventing someone from taking control of us, even if our stockholders believe that a change in control was in their best interests.

Provisions in the partnership agreement of our operating partnership may delay or make more difficult unsolicited acquisitions of us or changes in our control. These provisions could discourage third parties from making proposals involving an unsolicited acquisition of us or change of our control, although some stockholders might consider such proposals, if made, desirable. These provisions include, among others: - redemption rights of qualifying parties;- transfer restrictions on our common units;- the ability of the general partner in some cases to amend the partnership agreement without the consent of the limited partners; and - the right of the limited partners to consent to transfers of the general partnership interest and mergers of the operating partnership under specified circumstances.

Provisions contained in our charter and the Maryland General Corporation Law (the "MGCL") may have effects that delay, defer, or prevent a takeover attempt, which may prevent stockholders from receiving a "control premium" for their shares. For example, these provisions may defer or prevent tender offers for our common stock or purchases of large blocks of our common stock, thereby limiting the opportunities for our stockholders to receive a premium for their common stock over then-prevailing market prices. These provisions include the following: - The ownership limit in our charter limits related investors, including, among other things, any voting group, from acquiring over 9.8% of our common stock or of any class of our preferred stock without our permission. - Our charter authorizes our board of directors to issue common stock or preferred stock in one or more classes and to establish the preferences and rights of any class of common stock or preferred stock issued. These actions can be taken without soliciting stockholder approval. Our common stock and preferred stock issuances could have the effect of delaying or preventing someone from taking control of us, even if a change in control were in our stockholders' best interests. Maryland statutory law provides that an act (or determination not to act) of a director relating to or affecting an acquisition or a potential acquisition of control of a corporation may not be subject to a higher duty or greater scrutiny than is applied to any other act of a director. Hence, directors of a Maryland corporation by statute are not required to act in certain takeover situations under the same standards of care, and are not subject to the same standards of review, as apply in Delaware and other corporate jurisdictions.

Certain provisions of the MGCL may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us under circumstances that otherwise could provide our stockholders with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our common stock or a "control premium" for their shares or inhibit a transaction that might otherwise be viewed as being in the best interest of our stockholders. These provisions include: - "business combination" provisions that, subject to limitations, prohibit certain business combinations between us and an "interested stockholder" (defined generally as any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of our shares or an affiliate thereof) for five years after the most recent date on which the stockholder becomes an interested stockholder, and thereafter impose special stockholder voting requirements on these business combinations, unless certain fair price requirements set forth in the MGCL are satisfied; and - "control share" provisions that provide that "control shares" of our company (defined as shares which, when aggregated with other shares controlled by the stockholder, entitle the stockholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a "control share acquisition" (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of ownership or control of outstanding "control shares") have no voting rights except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding all interested shares. In addition, Subtitle 8 of Title 3 of the MGCL permits a Maryland corporation with a class of equity securities registered under the Exchange Act and at least three independent directors to elect to be subject, notwithstanding any contrary provision in the charter or bylaws, to any or all of the following five provisions: a classified board; a two-thirds stockholder vote requirement for removal of a director; a requirement that the number of directors be fixed only by vote of the directors; a requirement that a vacancy on the board of directors be filled only by the remaining directors and for the remainder of the full term of the class of directors in which the vacancy occurred; and a requirement that the holders of at least a majority of all votes entitled to be cast request a special meeting of stockholders. Our charter opts out of the business combination/moratorium and control share provisions of the MGCL. Through a provision unrelated to Subtitle 8, our charter provides that directors may only be removed for cause and by the vote of a majority of the stockholders. Because the opt outs from the business combination/moratorium and control share provisions of the MGCL are contained in our charter, they cannot be amended unless the board of directors recommends the amendment and the stockholders approve the amendment. Additionally, our board of directors has adopted a resolution that makes an election prohibiting us from making any of the elections permitted by Subtitle 8 unless such election is first approved by a stockholder vote.

Our board of directors has overall authority to oversee our business and affairs and determine our major corporate policies. This authority includes significant flexibility. For example, our board of directors can do the following without stockholder approval: - amend or revise at any time our dividend policy with respect to our common stock or preferred stock (including by eliminating, failing to declare, or significantly reducing dividends on these securities);- terminate Ashford LLC under certain conditions pursuant to our advisory agreement;- amend or revise at any time and from time to time our investment, financing, borrowing and dividend policies and our policies with respect to all other activities, including growth, debt, capitalization and operations;- amend our policies with respect to conflicts of interest provided that such changes are consistent with applicable legal requirements;- subject to the terms of our charter, prevent the ownership, transfer and/or accumulation of shares in order to protect our status as a REIT or for any other reason deemed to be in the best interests of us and our stockholders;- subject to the terms of any outstanding classes or series of preferred stock, issue additional shares of common stock and/or common units without obtaining stockholder approval, which could dilute the ownership of our then-current stockholders;- subject to the terms of any outstanding classes or series of preferred stock, amend our charter to increase or decrease the aggregate number of shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series, without obtaining stockholder approval;- subject to the terms of any outstanding classes or series of preferred stock, classify or reclassify any unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock and set the preferences, rights and other terms of such classified or reclassified shares, including provisions that may have an anti-takeover effect, without obtaining stockholder approval;- employ and compensate affiliates (subject to disinterested director approval);- direct our resources toward investments that do not ultimately appreciate over time; and - determine that it is no longer in our best interests to attempt to qualify, or to continue to qualify, as a REIT. Any of these actions could increase our operating expenses, impact our ability to make distributions or reduce the value of our assets without giving our stockholders the right to vote on whether we should take such actions.

Maryland law provides that a director or officer has no liability in that capacity if he or she performs his or her duties in good faith, in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in our best interests and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. In addition, our charter eliminates our directors' and officers' liability to us and our stockholders for money damages except for liability resulting from actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services or a judgment of active and deliberate dishonesty that was material to the cause of action. Our charter requires us to indemnify our directors and officers and to advance expenses prior to the final disposition of a proceeding to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law for liability actually incurred in connection with any proceeding to which they may be made, or threatened to be made, a party, except to the extent that the act or omission of the director or officer was material to the matter giving rise to the proceeding and was either committed in bad faith or was the result of active and deliberate dishonesty, the director or officer actually received an improper personal benefit in money, property or services, or, in the case of any criminal proceeding, the director or officer had reasonable cause to believe that the act or omission was unlawful. As a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights against our directors and officers than might otherwise exist under common law. In addition, we are generally obligated to advance the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers, prior to any determination regarding the availability of indemnification if actions are taken against them in their capacity as directors and officers.

Our charter authorizes the issuance of up to 250,000,000 shares of common stock and 80,000,000 shares of preferred stock. As of March 9, 2026, we had 68,679,318 shares of our common stock issued and outstanding, 3,078,017 shares of our Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, 1,600,000 shares of our Series D Cumulative Preferred Stock, 11,528,242 shares of our Series E Redeemable Preferred Stock and 1,382,407 shares of our Series M Redeemable Preferred Stock. We have also classified 10,000,000 shares of our authorized preferred stock as Series C Preferred Stock. As of March 9, 2026, no shares of Series C Preferred Stock are issued and outstanding. Our charter allows us to create new series of preferred stock at any time. Accordingly, we may issue up to an additional 181,320,682 shares of common stock and 62,411,334 shares of preferred stock.

Our charter provides that our board of directors may revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if it determines that it is no longer in our best interest to continue to qualify as a REIT. If we cease to qualify as a REIT, we would become subject to U.S. federal and state and local income taxes on our taxable income and would no longer be required to distribute most of our taxable income to our stockholders, which may have adverse consequences on the total return received by our stockholders.

We cannot predict whether future issuances of shares of our common stock or the availability of shares for resale in the open market will decrease the per share trading price of our common stock. The issuance of substantial numbers of shares of our common stock in the public market, or upon exchange of common units of our operating partnership, or the perception that such issuances might occur, could adversely affect the per share trading price of our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock in the public market, or upon exchange of the common units, or speculation that such sales might occur, could adversely affect the liquidity of the market for our common stock or the prevailing market price of our common stock. In addition, the exchange of common units for common stock, the exercise of any stock options or the vesting of any restricted stock granted under the 2013 Equity Incentive Plan, the issuance of our common stock or common units in connection with property, portfolio or business acquisitions and other issuances of our common stock or common units could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Our directors and executive officers own common units in our Company. Such common units may be redeemed by the holders for shares of our common stock on a one-for-one basis or, at our option, cash. The holders of these common units may sell shares issued to them, if any, upon redemption of the common units. So long as the holders of common units retain significant ownership in us and are able to sell such shares in the public markets, the market price of our common stock may be adversely affected. Moreover, the existence of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance as restricted shares or upon exchange of options or redemption of common units may adversely affect the terms upon which we may be able to obtain additional capital through the sale of equity securities. Any future sales by us of our common stock or securities convertible into common stock may be dilutive to existing stockholders.

The market value of the equity securities of a REIT is based primarily upon the market's perception of the REIT's growth potential and its current and potential future cash distributions, whether from operations, sales or refinancings, and is secondarily based upon the real estate market value of the underlying assets. For that reason, our common stock may trade at prices that are higher or lower than our net asset value per share. To the extent we retain operating cash flow for investment purposes, working capital reserves or other purposes, these retained funds, while increasing the value of our underlying assets, may not correspondingly increase the market price of our common stock. Our failure to meet the market's expectations with regard to future earnings and cash distributions likely would adversely affect the market price of our common stock.