Exhibit 99.1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INFINITY BIOGRAPHY

Infinity IPS, Inc. is a privately held firm offering trusted financial products and services to capital markets participants. Founded in 2002, by a group of experienced mortgage due diligence executives, Infinity was started with a simple mission: To provide an independent, innovative, reliable and transparent work product, backed by an unsurpassed level of customer service. As a third-party reviewer, our independence, integrity, depth of expertise, and approach to due diligence and credit risk management provides clients the highest degree of hands-on oversight and participation when buying or selling pools, securitizing loans, or managing loans and securitizations over time.

Our rigorous, high touch approach to due diligence reviews provides all data necessary in the provision of an asset due diligence, risk retention, loss mitigation and forensic analysis services for all classes or mortgage products, consumer lending products, and more. Our mission is to provide an independent, innovative, reliable and transparent work product, backed by an unsurpassed level of customer service.

As a rating agency reviewed third-party due diligence provider, Infinity prides itself on meeting the standards of S&P, Moody's, Fitch, Kroll, and DBRS. Infinity is a privately-owned business and is headquartered in Rockville, MD with an underwriting facility in Wesley Chapel, FL.

BACKGROUND AND SCOPE METHODOLOGY

This report summarizes the findings of a loan level due diligence review on a pool of first lien secured mortgage loans owned and managed by PRP-SC III, LLC (“Client”) and PRP Advisors, LLC (the “Asset Manager”) all to be referred as to the “Client”. The client engaged Infinity IPS, Inc. (“Infinity”) to complete the assignment through a review of imaged documents made available through imaged files.

The total population was 1,452 however; Infinity completed the audit on 1,452 mortgage loans from September 2017 to September 2021. The Audit was to confirm the presence of critical and supporting documentation. In addition, Infinity completed an audit of servicing comments and payment histories, a designated set of data fields to ensure the accuracy of the bid tape data, and performed a compliance review to identify any material compliance deficiencies¹

Infinity assigned an Event Level rating to each loan based on the following guidelines:

Event Level A: No material compliance or document deficiencies were noted

Event Level B: A non-critical deficiency was noted²

Event Level D: A material compliance or document deficiency was noted or critical documentation necessary to accurately complete testing was missing

Event Level C: Material issues were noted that limit the ability to market the loan or open the client to additional liability and client overlays.

The loan file reviews have two purposes. First to determine whether document files are complete or if they are missing information, creating deficiencies. The second objective is to verify data contained on the servicing tape by comparing the servicing information to the data contained in the loan documents.

Whether using imaged files or hard files, Infinity has performed a comprehensive review of the credit and working files, collateral documents, financial statements, and other information including servicing reports, to ascertain the facts regarding each asset. Specific activities include:

¹ Looking for loans that fail high cost violations as outlined in EXHIBIT B High-Cost Regulation Summary.

² The loan underwriting does not conform fully to the agreed upon standards, but deficiencies are immaterial or factors exist that would mitigate the deficiencies noted. Non-material compliance exceptions include, but are not limited to, exceptions that fall outside the applicable statute of limitations. Non-critical document exceptions include origination documents that are not critical documentation of collateral, or, are not necessary for audit of compliance thresholds.

As information regarding the asset is validated or corrected it is captured in our database where it is available for delivery to the client, clients, and marketing materials.

Included in the examination of the file documentation was a review of the collateral documents for completeness, enforceability and the existence of contingent claims. Factors impacting the client’s ability to freely transfer the assets, such as first rights of refusal, participation agreements, cross-collateralization, etc. are noted. The reviewer has analyzed the documents to determine whether: the document has been signed and dated appropriately; that documents are originals or copies, that correct terms and conditions were used and applied on a consistent basis; and that all required documents were executed. Infinity would then identify deficiencies and notify the client of same.

Some documentation deficiencies may be cured by securing certified copies of missing documentation from public records. If the file is missing an original note, an executed copy of the note must be certified by a “Lost Note Affidavit” in a format approved by the client. The same procedure can be used to obtain “Same Name” affidavits and re-execution of improperly witnessed documents.

Deficiencies in the loan or its underlying collateral generally affect ownership and value. Some are curable, others are not. Some deficiencies can be cured inexpensively while others have significant impacts on value. Infinity looks at two kinds of deficiencies. Documentation deficiencies can be cured with the client’s approval and sufficient time. These items might include unreleased liens clouding title, missing original notes or assignments, or incomplete legal documentation. Physical deficiencies, on the other hand, affect the underlying collateral. These must be factored into the analysis and valuation of the asset and may be used in establishing reserves. Infinity considers, at a minimum, the following:

The specific exception level criteria established for this review can be found in Exhibit A. The detailed scope of these reviews and a summary of the results are provided in the Summary of Findings.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Infinity noted non-critical missing documents or minor compliance exceptions in 90.91% of the loan population, while the remaining 09.09% had some component to be aware of.

DOCUMENTATION

Loan files were reviewed by Infinity to confirm the presence of critical origination documents, including the Note, Mortgage, Title, HUD-1, Truth-in-Lending disclosures, and a Right of Rescission. Infinity also checked for the presence of Modifications, where applicable. Some non-critical origination documents were also audited to confirm the completeness of origination files.

Note that the exceptions below represent an audit of imaged origination files provided to Infinity by Client. In conjunction, Client conducted a separate review of physical collateral files and, as a result, requested the categorization of certain collateral exceptions as Event Level 3 and 2 exceptions (e.g. missing title, missing mortgage). Where applicable, the presence of these documents in the physical collateral file was confirmed by Client. Exceptions for all missing documents are summarized below.

Client noted that due to the seasoning of these loans, some origination documentation may not be available.

³ Infinity defines the full legal balance as the total amount due on the loan. The unpaid balance plus all fees and arrearages

⁴ These items have expired.

⁵ This is the total number of items and not total number of loans

COMPLIANCE REVIEW⁶

Infinity performed a compliance review on all of the loans in the sample in order to verify that each loan was originated in compliance with applicable federal, state and local anti-predatory lending statutes. If a loan was found to exceed applicable thresholds, additional testing was conducted to confirm additional criteria were met, and proper disclosure was provided to the borrower.

To accomplish this, Infinity captured all itemized closing fees as shown on the final HUD-1, or other acceptable settlement statement, as well as other data elements necessary to generate accurate high-cost threshold testing results. Annual Percentage Rates were recalculated based on the actual data in the file.⁷

Each mortgage loan file was tested for compliance with the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), as well as federal, state and local anti-predatory lending statutes. An overview of the federal testing is provided below, and a summary of the State & Local High-Cost Anti-Predatory Regulations that are covered can be found in Exhibit B.

The Section 32/HOEPA⁸ review included, but was not limited to, the following:

The Federal Truth in Lending Act/Regulation Z review includes, but is not necessarily limited to:

⁶ Note that compliance exceptions outside the statute of limitations were considered a non-critical exception for purposes of this review. Infinity identified 367 Truth in Lending Act (TILA) related exceptions that fell outside the three (3) year statute of limitations.

⁷ Note that loans had rate documentation and those parameters were analyzed for adherence to federal, state and local rate thresholds by utilizing the disclosed APR on the final Truth in Lending Disclosure found in the file.

⁸ There is a 3-year statute of limitations for affirmative claims and the position is that assigned liability is quite limited thereafter. That said, many states allow actions in recoupment. This is where the holder institutes foreclosure after 3 years and the SOL is tolled and counterclaims allowed, basically for the life of the loan. If the borrower prevailed damages could be as high as the full amount of the loan.

Infinity reviewed 1,452 loan files and found the loans to be generally compliant with applicable laws or outside any statute of limitation (SOL). There were a total of 212 loans that were not tested for compliance of which 123 loans that were missing HUD Settlement Statement, 67 loans were Investment Properties or exempted and 8 loans originated prior to 1995. The following is a detailed breakdown of the findings for the loans noted:

Note that compliance exceptions outside the statute of limitations were considered a non-critical exception for purposes of this review. Infinity identified 333 loans with Truth in Lending Act

⁹ We had 187 missing and unexecuted HUDs and were not able to run compliance on 123 For the remaining 64 missing HUDs; 7 were investment properties, 4 were originated prior to 1995 and 53 had compliance run using the TIL itemizations/ Estimated HUDs/ improperly scanned copy.

¹⁰ Loans that could not be tested due to lack of missing documentation

¹¹ The Georgia Fair Lending Act (GAFLA) was originally signed into law on April 22, 2002, became effective on October 1, 2002, and was subsequently amended on March 7, 2003. This law had a significant impact on Georgia residential mortgage lending and brokering activities. These passed the APR and Fees and Points Threshold. None loans have been identified in pool that is originated within GAFLA Period.

¹² We are unable to verify code  Special Feature Code 147 or determine if it falls under the safe harbor and truly fails ATR

¹³ Each of these were not tested to exceed state APR and/or points and fees thresholds, but rather could not be definitively tested due to lack of documentation in the loan files regarding discount points.

¹⁴ These are included in the pool based on the mitigating factors (namely seasoning and performance).

¹⁵ This is the total number of items and not total number of loans

(TILA) related exceptions that fell outside the three (3) year statute of limitations¹⁶.

Infinity did not identify a significant number of prepayment penalties for nonconformity to state guidelines. Some loans were originated by federally chartered lenders that took advantage of the preemptive authority of DIDMCA and AMTPA. Under these circumstances, the prepayment penalty provision was considered exempt from any state statutory limitations. If a loan was not exempt due to a preemption claim, it was Client practice to lower the prepayment penalty to the statutory limit. In these cases, a discrepancy between the origination file and the Client system of record may exist (See Data Integrity Summary).

DATA INTEGRITY

Infinity was provided a data file with loan level detail from September 2017 to September 2021, which was audited against origination documents to determine the accuracy of bid tape data. Infinity’s extract report delivers over 850 data points per loan file. The data points are based on the 1,452 loans left in the loan pool.

The following 53 data fields are a sample of the fields that were reviewed to confirm the integrity of bid tape information. (We have been provided tape data on approximately 136 fields):

¹⁶ On the 367 Infinity is noting the TILA violation, itself. These refer to under disclosures and missing TILA documents. Infinity was not referring to the other RESPA related documents, GFE, Mortgage Disclosures, Affiliated Business Disclosure, Initial Escrow Statement, and Servicing Transfer Statement. There were some loans that failed both for Under Disclosed fees and points and APR.

The loan level audit showed the tape data for this sample to be generally accurate. Infinity noted the discrepancies within the detailed data comparison report. Below is a summary of the field level findings that show a direct discrepancy rate.

A summary of discrepancies by field can be found in the table below. Note that Client provided additional information to clarify the discrepancy rates for some fields. Per Client, many fields on the bid tape are representative of current system data, which may cause the loan level data to differ from the origination file due to basic loan servicing activity.

For example, bankruptcy activity may impact the Initial or Lifetime Floors and Caps. Similarly, previous modifications may cause discrepancies in Maturity Date, Interest Only term, Balloon indicator, Initial Rate Adjustment Period, or other ARM data fields. As indicated previously, Client may also have lowered the term of a prepayment penalty that exceeded state guidelines if a preemption claim did not exist, thus causing a discrepancy from the Note at origination.

PAY HISTORY REVIEW

Infinity performed a collection comment, pay history, Pacer, and servicing information review on 1,452 loans within this pool. The following is a summary of our conclusions and findings surrounding this analysis. Please keep in mind that this review did not include an operational or gap audit to look for servicing practices and vendor management process governance as it relates to foreclosure and/or bankruptcy¹⁷.

Infinity reviewed the servicer payment history for each loan to establish a payment activity and history string. Infinity reviewed the payment application and determined how it impacted the contractual due dates on the loans in the portfolio with the primary focus of determining cash

¹⁷ The loans were reviewed to isolate issues for repayment risk.

flows, last payment received, payment string, and next payment due (not to exclude escrow, late, and servicing charges) information based on the as of dates of the payment histories received. 

A breakdown of the loans and as of dates for the review are below:

Data points surrounding 24 months of payment history (as defined as the most recent 24 months available during the period of September 2017 to September 2021) were also collected to determine loan status and data integrity. Infinity identified minor discrepancies between the servicer’s payment string and the audited payment string and determined that Client was able to provide an explanation, when applicable, for any noted discrepancies.¹⁸ Based on our analysis, Infinity determined that the majority of the loans were found to be 120 days or more delinquent and in the general default loan classification of “Bankruptcy”.

Methods of Accounting for Delinquencies

The client utilizes the MBA method of defining delinquency status, which is typical in the current market. Below is a table that represents the delinquency coding methodology used during our analysis.

Payment Posting

During the review, Infinity was able to isolate key payment transaction codes that identified payment receipt and helped to determine whether the transactions were posted with an accurate “effective date”. The net payment amount received and applied to the account including

¹⁸ A 24-month rolling string indicates the number of months past the due date for each payment made. Infinity used the contractual payment due while the servicer included adjustments for new legal agreements established for accounts in Chapter 13 bankruptcy (post-petition due date) and loans current while in an active repayment plan. We found that some of the tape items showed a right to left approach (the most recent delinquency was to the far right). Infinity places the most recent delinquency to the left. We also used indicator of 0 to 4 (zero as current and 4 as 120 plus), while some sellers used other accounting items up to an including 9. We found that majority of the loans had this type of discrepancy.

principal, interest, and escrow payments represent activity through month end and include payment reversals.

Partial Payments

In the event that a payment received from the borrower is less than the contractual amount due, there are two types of processes used by sellers to handle partial payments: 1) the balance of the payment would be “advanced” to the borrower, or 2) the payment was applied directly to unapplied funds / suspense account.

In the second scenario, the funds are applied to the suspense account, and not the account balance, and therefore the amount of such payment is not recorded as an actual payment in the Client system. The funds may then be held in suspense until the full contractual payment was received.

Escrow/Corporate Advance Payments¹⁹

Escrow: The escrow account and/or balance will show funds held in trust to pay taxes and/or insurance. A negative balance indicates that funds have been advanced.

Corporate Advance: Infinity did not perform a reconciliation of the corporate advances, but did document the total dollar amount of fees advanced by the servicer and made observations in regards to the application of payments made toward the reduction of outstanding balances as represented in the payment history.²⁰

Collection Comments Review

In addition to analyzing payments made to the loans within this pool, Infinity also reviewed the servicing commentary to determine the reason(s) for any documented underperformance of the asset and to identify any indication of potential re-performance.

Infinity will review the servicing history for evidence of mortgage delinquency and for indicators of potential for future delinquency. The Servicing review will include but not necessarily be limited to:

¹⁹ Corporate advances may be deferred until the end of the loan and may not be recoverable.

²⁰ Client noted that some funds were not separately categorized at the time of the review due multiple servicers handing the loans.

Based on the comments reviewed within the collection comments, Infinity has categorized the portfolio as follows:

²¹ Collection comments were made to the client to identify loans with damages – 11 loans had been noted with large repair costs.

Foreclosure

Client servicing comments indicated multiple items to assist with determining this status either a system generated breach letter was issued, if the loan was referred to a foreclosure review committee, approved to proceed, or if the loan was assigned to outside counsel or the updated title provided details of a Lis Pendens. Based on the collection comments, Infinity determined that there were 755 loans (51.99%) that indicated some type of Foreclosure action.

Bankruptcy

Collection comments indicate that the most available action showed loans had bankruptcy at one time. Some loans bankruptcy includes efforts for a motion for relief and proof of claim filings. However, comments that relate to filing the proof of claim, 341 meeting, and motions were not found on all loans, so it was difficult to determine the full action or status as related to the bankruptcy process. Infinity determined that there were 1085 loans (74.72%) that indicated some type of Bankruptcy action. Overall, the loans with a bankruptcy status were summarized as follows:

Servicing Data Integrity Review

Infinity was provided a data file with loan level data during the applicable review of September 2017 to September 2021, which was audited against servicing comments and payment histories to determine the accuracy of bid tape data.

The following servicing data points were collected to confirm the integrity of bid tape information:

²² Excludes Modification Deferred Principal Balance. Active Chapter 13 account balances are before necessary adjustments to segregate pre-petition, post-petition funds and all necessary fees that are accountable. As a result, the balance on the receivable system may not be fully reconciled.

²³ Current Rate - The current interest rate of the mortgage at time of cut-off. This rate will change for ARMs in the month of the index change for the next payment due. Changes will not take effect if a loan is not paid through to the next rate change date. This rate will also reflect SCRA, rate reductions, bankruptcy or loan modifications.

The loan level audit showed the tape data for this sample to be generally accurate. Infinity noted the discrepancies within the detailed data comparison report. Below is a summary of the field level findings that show an overall servicing discrepancy 3.77% Note that this error rate is mostly attributable to timing difference and/ or limited information.

A summary of discrepancies by field can be found in the summary tables below. Note that Client provided additional information in the footnotes to clarify the discrepancy rates for some fields.

²⁴ Client uses plan due and Infinity uses contractual - Note that if a loan is pre-paid, the next due date will reflect a next payment due date in the future. For loans which are subject to Chapter 13 bankruptcy, this field reflects the post-petition due date or the most recent agreed order due date.

Tax and Title

This limited-scope was for around reviewing and documenting the most recent title report provided by the client or client’s vendor. (This case the reports were provided by ProTitle). Based on the title report, we captured the current lien position, potential assignment chain concerns, concerns with recordation and legal ownership; and any current and delinquent taxes. We noted liens and itemized liens up to 2 Senior and 3 Junior (all others will be summarized in the title findings summary).

We reviewed the subject file as provided by the client/seller and determine if the HUD and Title work performed at origination would indicate coverage and/or lien risk. These documents were used to offset items noted on the current title report which may lower the client’s/loan level risk. 

If any issue was identified the client was made aware and has made arrangements to assure the curative action has been taken. Based on the review, it was determined that there were no non-curable significant issues on the mortgaged properties. 

Tax/Municipal Portion

Title/Lien Portion

²⁵ Any delinquent tax amounts were addressed by the Servicer in accordance with its standard servicing procedures in order to ensure that the senior lien of the related Mortgage is maintained on the related Mortgaged Property. In addition to the Title Review conducted by the Infinity at the time of acquisition, the Servicer is monitoring the Mortgage Loans to check for delinquent taxes on the related Mortgaged Properties.

²⁶ The client has made arrangements to perfect the lien level issues- by corrective recording action, title claims, or lien release actions.

²⁷ The client has made arrangements to perfect the lien level issues- by corrective recording action, title claims, or lien release actions.

²⁸ The client has made arrangements to re-record or file title actions needed to protect the subject lien. 

DISCLAIMER

Infinity IPS, Inc. (“Infinity”) is a consumer loan and mortgage due- diligence company that performs due diligence services on assets typically held by banking institutions. The due diligence results, analysis, reports and any other information provided by Infinity (“Infinity Product”) is produced solely for use by its clients. Neither Infinity nor, by virtue of any reliance thereon, Infinity Product is making any solicitation or recommendation to buy, sell or hold, in any form whatsoever, the consumer loan products or mortgages that are the subject of Infinity’s due diligence.

Infinity is not liable for any investment decisions by any third party. Infinity Product has been provided to Infinity clients as an information service only. The accuracy or completeness of the information is not warranted and is only as reliable as the sources from which it was obtained.

EXHIBIT A

Client Exception Grade List

²⁹ When a loan is modified that will lower the risk.

³⁰ These loans were pulled from the deal

³¹ Due to the missing disclosures, we are unable to determine if these loans violate state high cost testing.

³² There is no assignee risk to the investor

³³ If the Loan failed the testing but was missing the discount point disclosures the loan was coded 3 since the loan would pass the test.

³⁴ There is a 3-year statute of limitations for affirmative claims and so position is that assigned liability is quite limited thereafter. That said, many states allow actions in recoupment. This is where the holder institutes foreclosure after 3 years and the SOL is tolled and counterclaims allowed, basically for the life of the loan. If the borrower prevailed damages could be as high as the full amount of the loan.

³⁵ HOEPA loans were subject to testing, but we did not see documentation showing these were originated as within HOEPA disclosure requirements. 

³⁶ When the file contained a lost note which was offset with a judgment then the loan was reduced to a 3

³⁷ Client was requesting prior servicer to process these

³⁸ Client was requesting servicer to pay these to protect the subject lien 

EXHIBIT B

High-Cost Regulation Summary

Compliance Review:

Each mortgage loan file will be subject to a post-closing regulatory compliance review to verify that each mortgage loan closed in compliance with the applicable federal, state and local anti-predatory lending statutes in effect at the time of origination of the Mortgage Loan and that the loans meet the applicable disclosure requirements provided under MDIA, the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), as amended by (i) HOEPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., as implemented by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 1026; (ii) Section 4 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §2601 et seq., as implemented by Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. Part 1024. (iii) Fannie Mae points and fees limitations and HOEPA restrictions as addressed in Fannie Mae Announcement 04-06; (iv) the disclosure requirements and prohibitions of Section 50(a)(6), Article XVI of the Texas Constitution and associated regulations; and (v) the disclosure requirements and prohibitions of the applicable state, county and municipal laws and ordinances that were enacted to combat predatory lending or its predecessor regulations for loans originated prior to October 12, 2012 and (vi) the disclosure requirements and prohibitions of the applicable state, county and municipal laws and ordinances that were enacted to combat predatory lending. This would include ATR/QM and/or TRID as required by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. ³⁹

For loans with an application taken on/ after January 10, 2014; INFINITY has adopted the rules set forth by sections 1411, 1412 and 1414 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act. as part of its policy and procedure. INFINITY shall utilize the QM/ATR rule as a guide in determining if whether or not the standards and provisions of the rule have been met by our CLIENTs. Qualified Mortgages have three types of requirements: restrictions on loan features, points and fees, and underwriting. One of the underwriting requirements under the general definition for Qualified Mortgages is that the borrower’s total debt-to-income ratio is not higher than 43 percent (For S&P 42%). The Ability To Repay rule provides eight specific factors to consider (including verifications of income or assets relied on, employment if relied on, and review of credit history) ⁴⁰.

For loans with an application taken on/ after October 3, 2015, INFINITY we look at the Loan Estimate (LE) and Closing Disclosure (CD) and the origination process to confirm that the loan is compliant with TRID as required by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. TRID ⁴¹ is an acronym for TILA- RESPA Integrated Disclosure (also referred to as the TILA-RESPA Rule) and applies to most closed-end Borrower credit transactions secured

³⁹ For this review the client had requested that for files missing key documents such as their Note and/or Mortgage that Infinity use the tape data to complete missing data points to run compliance testing.

⁴⁰ Eight underwriting factors: (1) current or reasonably expected income or assets; (2) current employment status; (3) the monthly payment on the covered transaction; (4) the monthly payment on any simultaneous loan; (5) the monthly payment for mortgage-related obligations; (6) current debt obligations, alimony, and child support; (7) the monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income; and (8) credit history. Creditors must generally use reasonably reliable third-party records to verify the information they use to evaluate the factors.

⁴¹ With the recent TRID updates we look the guidance given by SFIG (SFIG RMBS 3.0 TRID compliance Review scope 2016-05-04-V3.0). 

by real property. The rule does not apply to HELOCs, reverse mortgage, and a dwelling not attached to real property (i.e. mobile homes). TRID consolidates four existing disclosures required under TILA and RESPA for closed-end credit transactions secured by real property into two forms.

accurately disclosed on the GFE and were reflected in the proper locations on the document. Review of any re-disclosures due to a change of circumstance.

Please be advised that INFINITY will not make a determination as to whether the loans comply with federal, state or local laws, constitutional provisions, regulations or ordinances that are not expressly enumerated above. Furthermore, the findings reached by INFINITY are dependent upon its receiving complete and accurate data regarding the loans from loan originators and other third parties upon which INFINITY is relying in reaching such findings.

Please be further advised that INFINITY does not employ personnel who are licensed to practice law in the various jurisdictions, and the findings set forth in the reports prepared by INFINITY do not constitute legal advice or opinions. They are recommendations or conclusions based on information provided to INFINITY. All final decisions as to whether to purchase any individual loans and any legal conclusions, including the potential liability related to the purchase of any such loan, shall be made solely by CLIENT. The CLIENT acknowledges and agrees that the scoring models applied by INFINITY are designed to identify potential risk and the CLIENT assumes sole responsibility for determining the suitability of the information for its particular use.