Ellington Residential Mortgage (EARN) Risk Factors

The declaration, amount, nature, and payment of any future dividends on our common shares are at the sole discretion of our Board of Trustees. Under Maryland law, cash dividends on capital stock may only be paid if, after payment, the corporation will be able to pay its debts as they become due in the ordinary course of business; and the corporation's assets will be greater than its liabilities, plus, unless the charter permits otherwise, the amount that would be needed, if the corporation were to be dissolved at the time of the distribution, to satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of shareholders whose preferential rights on dissolution are superior to those receiving the distribution. Further, even if we are permitted to pay a dividend under Maryland law, we may not have sufficient cash to pay dividends on our common shares. In addition, in order to preserve our liquidity, our Board of Trustees may not declare a dividend at all or declare all or any portion of a dividend to be payable in stock, may delay the record date or payment date for any previously declared, but unpaid, dividend, convert a previously declared, but unpaid, cash dividend on our common shares to a dividend paid partially or completely in common shares, or even revoke a declared, but unpaid, dividend. Our ability to pay dividends may be impaired if any of the risks described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, or any of our other periodic or current reports filed with the SEC, were to occur. In addition, payment of dividends depends upon our earnings, liquidity, financial condition, the REIT distribution requirements, our financial covenants, and other factors that our Board of Trustees may deem relevant from time to time. We cannot assure you that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that future borrowings or other capital will be available to us in an amount sufficient to enable us to make distributions on our common shares, to pay our indebtedness, or to fund other liquidity needs. Our Board of Trustees will continue to assess the dividend rate on our common shares on an ongoing basis, as market conditions and our financial position continue to evolve. Our Board of Trustees is under no obligation to declare any dividend distribution. We cannot assure you that we will achieve results that will allow us to pay a specified level of dividends or to increase dividends from one period to the next.

The tax implications of the corporate CLOs in which we invest are complex and, in some circumstances, unclear. In particular, we may recognize taxable income on certain of our CLO investments without the concurrent receipt of cash.

We intend to pay dividends to our shareholders in amounts such that we distribute all or substantially all of each year's taxable income (subject to certain adjustments). This distribution policy will enable us to avoid being subject to U.S. federal income tax on our REIT taxable income that we distribute to our shareholders. However, our ability to pay dividends will depend on our earnings, our financial condition and such other factors as our Board of Trustees may deem relevant from time to time. We will declare and pay dividends only to the extent approved by our Board of Trustees.

Under the Code, a corporation is generally allowed a deduction for NOLs carried over from prior taxable years, subject to certain limitations. As of December 31, 2023, we had approximately $39 million of gross federal NOL carryforwards available to reduce future federal tax liabilities. We also have NOL carryforwards in certain states available to reduce future state tax liabilities. Our NOL carryforwards are subject to adjustment on audit by the Internal Revenue Service and applicable state taxing authorities. Our ability to use our NOLs and other carryforwards depends on the amount of taxable income generated in future periods. Should we recognize a deferred tax asset with respect to such NOLs, there can be no assurance that a valuation allowance will not be required with respect to our NOLs should our financial performance be negatively impacted in the future. In addition, the use of NOLs and other carryforwards to offset taxable income is subject to various limitations, which could limit our ability to utilize these tax attributes to reduce our taxes even if we generate sufficient taxable income. For example, federal NOLs can be used to offset only 80% of our federal taxable income for any taxable year, and Connecticut NOLs can be used to offset only 50% of our Connecticut taxable income for any taxable year. A corporation's ability to deduct its federal NOL carryforwards and to utilize certain other available tax attributes can be substantially constrained under the general annual limitation rules of Section 382 of the Code ("Section 382") if it undergoes an "ownership change" as defined in Section 382. In general, an "ownership change" occurs if 5% shareholders increase their collective ownership of the aggregate amount of the outstanding shares of our company by more than 50 percentage points looking back over the relevant testing period. If an ownership change occurs, our ability to use our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes to reduce our taxable income in a future year would be limited to a Section 382 limitation equal to the fair market value of our common shares immediately prior to the ownership change multiplied by the long-term tax-exempt interest rate in effect for the month of the ownership change. An ownership change may severely limit or effectively eliminate our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes. Although we do not believe that an ownership change has occurred, no assurance can be provided as to whether an ownership change has occurred or will occur in the future. Limitations imposed by Sections 382 may discourage us from, among other things, repurchasing our common shares or issuing additional common shares to acquire businesses or assets. We have entered into a Rights Agreement with Equiniti Trust Company, LLC, dated as of April 23, 2024 (the "Rights Agreement") designed to preserve shareholder value and the value of certain tax assets primarily associated with NOL carryforwards under Section 382 of the Code. See "The Rights Agreement that we entered into to protect our tax attributes could hinder the market for our Common Shares."

We rely on our Manager and our Manager relies on the analytical models used by Ellington (both proprietary and third-party models) and information and data supplied by third parties. These models and data may be used to value assets or potential asset acquisitions and dispositions and also in connection with our asset management activities. If Ellington's models (including the data utilized by the models) and/or third party models or data prove to be incorrect, misleading, or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon could expose us to potential risks. Our Manager's reliance on the models and data used by Ellington may induce it to purchase certain assets at prices that are too high, to sell certain other assets at prices that are too low, or to miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging activities that are based on faulty models and data may prove to be unsuccessful. Some of the risks of relying on analytical models and third-party data include the following: - collateral cash flows and/or liability structures may be incorrectly modeled in all or only certain scenarios, or may be modeled based on simplifying assumptions that lead to errors;- information about assets or the underlying collateral may be incorrect, incomplete, or misleading;- asset, collateral, MBS, or CLO historical performance (such as historical prepayments, defaults, cash flows, etc.) may be incorrectly reported, or subject to interpretation (e.g., different MBS issuers may report delinquency statistics based on different definitions of what constitutes a delinquent loan); and - asset, collateral, MBS, or CLO information may be outdated, in which case the models may contain incorrect assumptions as to what has occurred since the date information was last updated. Some models, such as prepayment models or default models, may be predictive in nature. The use of predictive models has inherent risks. For example, such models may incorrectly forecast future behavior, leading to potential losses. In addition, the predictive models used by our Manager may differ substantially from those models used by other market participants, with the result that valuations based on these predictive models may be substantially higher or lower for certain assets than actual market prices. Furthermore, because predictive models are usually constructed based on historical data supplied by third parties, the success of relying on such models may depend heavily on the accuracy and reliability of the supplied historical data, and, in the case of predicting performance in scenarios with little or no historical precedent (such as extreme broad-based declines in home prices, deep economic recessions or depressions, or pandemics), such models must employ greater degrees of extrapolation and are therefore more speculative and of more limited reliability. All valuation models rely on correct market data inputs. If incorrect market data is entered into even a well-founded valuation model, the resulting valuations will be incorrect. However, even if market data is input correctly, "model prices" will often differ substantially from market prices, especially for securities with complex characteristics or whose values are particularly sensitive to various factors. If our market data inputs are incorrect or our model prices differ substantially from market prices, our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders could be materially adversely affected.

In the event of our insolvency or bankruptcy, certain repurchase agreements may qualify for special treatment under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the effect of which, among other things, would be to allow the lender to avoid the automatic stay provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and to foreclose on and/or liquidate the collateral pledged under such agreements without delay. In the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of a lender during the term of a repo agreement, the lender may be permitted, under applicable insolvency laws, to repudiate the contract, and our claim against the lender for damages may be treated simply as an unsecured claim. In addition, if the lender is a broker or dealer subject to the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, or an insured depository institution subject to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, our ability to exercise our rights to recover our securities under a repo agreement or to be compensated for any damages resulting from the lenders' insolvency may be further limited by those statutes. These claims would be subject to significant delay and costs to us and, if and when received, may be substantially less than the damages we actually incur.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and exclusion from registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we may pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in interest rates and, to a lesser extent, credit risk. Our hedging activity is expected to vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, the types of liabilities and assets held and other changing market conditions. Hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things: - interest rate hedging can be expensive, particularly during periods of rising and volatile interest rates;- available interest rate hedges may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk for which protection is sought;- the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related assets or liabilities being hedged;- many hedges are structured as over-the-counter contracts with counterparties whose creditworthiness is not guaranteed, raising the possibility that the hedging counterparty may default on their obligations;- to the extent that the creditworthiness of a hedging counterparty deteriorates, it may be difficult or impossible to terminate or assign any hedging transactions with such counterparty to another counterparty;- to the extent hedging transactions do not satisfy certain provisions of the Code and are not made through a TRS, the amount of income that a REIT may earn from hedging transactions to offset interest rate losses is limited by U.S. federal tax provisions governing REITs;- the value of derivatives used for hedging may be adjusted from time to time in accordance with accounting rules to reflect changes in fair value. Downward adjustments, or "mark-to-market losses," would reduce our earnings and our shareholders' equity;- we may fail to correctly assess the degree of correlation between the performance of the instruments used in the hedging strategy and the performance of the assets in the portfolio being hedged;- our Manager may fail to recalculate, re-adjust, and execute hedges in an efficient and timely manner; and - the hedging transactions may actually result in poorer overall performance for us than if we had not engaged in the hedging transactions. Although we do not intend to operate our non-Agency RMBS investment strategy on a credit-hedged basis in general, we may from time to time opportunistically enter into short positions using credit default swaps to protect against adverse credit events with respect to our non-Agency RMBS, provided that our ability to do so may be limited in order to maintain our qualification as a REIT and maintain our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. For these and other reasons, our hedging activity could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, and our ability to maintain our qualification as a REIT.

Hedging instruments and other derivatives, including certain types of credit default swaps, involve risk because they may not, in many cases, be traded on exchanges and may not be guaranteed or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, for these instruments there may be less stringent requirements with respect to record keeping and compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. Our Manager is not restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of its transactions with one counterparty. Furthermore, our Manager has only a limited internal credit function to evaluate the creditworthiness of its counterparties, mainly relying on its experience with such counterparties and their general reputation as participants in these markets. Under the terms of many of our hedging transaction contracts, the business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in a default under the agreement governing the hedging arrangement. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in losses and may force us to re-initiate similar hedges with other counterparties at the then-prevailing market levels. Generally, we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging transactions upon a counterparty's insolvency, but absent an actual insolvency, we may not be able to terminate a hedging transaction without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to assign or otherwise dispose of a hedging transaction to another counterparty without the consent of both the original hedging counterparty and the potential assignee. If we terminate a hedging transaction, we may not be able to enter into a replacement contract in order to cover our risk. There can be no assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and therefore we may be required to maintain any hedging position until exercise or expiration, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. In addition, some portion of our hedges are cleared through a central counterparty clearinghouse, or "CCP," which we access through a futures commission merchant, or "FCM." If an FCM that holds our cleared derivatives account were to become insolvent, the CCP will make an effort to move our futures and swap positions to an alternate FCM, though it is possible that no alternate FCM could be found to accept our positions, which could result in a total cancellation of our positions in the account; in such a case, if we wished to reinstate such hedging positions, we would have to re-initiate such positions with an alternate FCM. In the event of the insolvency of an FCM that holds our cleared over-the-counter derivatives, the rules of the CCP require that its direct members submit bids to take over the portfolio of the FCM, and would further require the CCP to move our existing positions and related margin to an alternate FCM. If this were to occur, we believe that our risk of loss would be limited to the excess equity in the account at the insolvent FCM due to the "legally segregated, operationally commingled" treatment of client assets under the rules governing FCMs in respect of cleared over-the-counter derivatives. In addition, in the case of both futures and cleared over-the-counter derivatives, there could be knock-on effects of our FCM's insolvency, such as the failure of co-customers of the FCM or other FCMs of the same CCP. In such cases, there could be a shortfall in the funds available to the CCP due to such additional insolvencies and/or exhaustion of the CCP's guaranty fund that could lead to total loss of our positions in the FCM account. Finally, we face a risk of loss (including total cancellation) of positions in the account in the event of fraud by our FCM or other FCMs of the CCP, where ordinary course remedies would not apply. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or "CFTC," and certain commodity exchanges have established limits referred to as speculative position limits or position limits on the maximum net long or net short position which any person or group of persons may hold or control in particular futures and options. Limits on trading in options contracts also have been established by the various options exchanges. It is possible that trading decisions may have to be modified and that positions held may have to be liquidated in order to avoid exceeding such limits. Such modification or liquidation, if required, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

Sellers of mortgage loans to the trusts that issued the non-Agency RMBS in which we invest made various representations and warranties related to the mortgage loans sold by them to the trusts that issued the RMBS. If a seller fails to cure a material breach of its representations and warranties with respect to any mortgage loan in a timely manner, then the trustee or the servicer of the loans may have the right to require that the seller repurchase the defective mortgage loan (or in some cases substitute a performing mortgage loan). It is possible, however, that for financial or other reasons, the seller either may not be capable of repurchasing defective mortgage loans, or may dispute the validity of or otherwise resist its obligation to repurchase defective mortgage loans. The inability or unwillingness of a seller to repurchase defective mortgage loans from a non-Agency RMBS trust in which we invest would likely cause higher rates of delinquencies, defaults and losses for the mortgage loans backing such non-Agency RMBS, and ultimately greater losses for our investment in such non-Agency RMBS.

If we acquire and subsequently resell any whole mortgage loans, we would generally be required to make customary representations and warranties about such loans to the loan purchaser. Our residential mortgage loan sale agreements and terms of any securitizations into which we sell loans will generally require us to repurchase or substitute loans in the event we breach a representation or warranty given to the loan purchaser. In addition, we may be required to repurchase loans as a result of borrower fraud or in the event of early payment default on a mortgage loan. The remedies available to a purchaser of mortgage loans are generally broader than those available to us against an originating broker or correspondent. Repurchased loans are typically worth only a fraction of the original price. Significant repurchase activity could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

We depend on a variety of services provided by third-party service providers related to our non-Agency RMBS and whole mortgage loans and loan pools we may acquire. We rely on the mortgage servicers who service the mortgage loans backing our non-Agency RMBS to, among other things, collect principal and interest payments on the underlying mortgages and perform loss mitigation services. Our mortgage servicers and other service providers to our non-Agency RMBS, such as trustees, bond insurance providers and custodians, may not perform in a manner that promotes our interests. In addition, legislation that has been enacted or that may be enacted in order to reduce or prevent foreclosures through, among other things, loan modifications, may reduce the value of MSRs or mortgage loans backing our non-Agency RMBS, CRTs or whole mortgage loans that we may acquire. Mortgage servicers may be incentivized by the U.S. Government to pursue such loan modifications, as well as forbearance plans and other actions intended to prevent foreclosure, even if such loan modifications and other actions are not in the best interests of the beneficial owners of the mortgage loans. In addition to legislation that creates financial incentives for mortgage loan servicers to modify loans and take other actions that are intended to prevent foreclosures, legislation has also been adopted that creates a safe harbor from liability to creditors for servicers that undertake loan modifications and other actions that are intended to prevent foreclosures. Legislation has been adopted that delays the initiation or completion of foreclosure proceedings on specified types of residential mortgage loans or otherwise limits the ability of mortgage servicers to take actions that may be essential to preserve the value of the mortgage loans underlying the mortgage servicing rights. Any such limitations are likely to cause delayed or reduced collections from mortgagors and generally increase servicing costs. As a result of these legislative actions, the mortgage loan servicers on which we rely may not perform in our best interests or up to our expectations. If our third-party service providers including mortgage servicers do not perform as expected, our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders may be materially adversely affected. In addition, to the extent that we own the MSR related to a mortgage loan, we could be ultimately liable for any servicing infractions by a subservicer, and in certain cases, infractions related to the origination of the mortgage loans. To the extent that we or a master servicer cannot recover any such losses from the originator or subservicer, we would suffer losses, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Any increases in servicing costs, including as a result of an increase in the difficulty of or the costs related to loss mitigation efforts, would lower our yield on the relevant assets and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Further, if we purchase pools of whole mortgage loans, we may engage in our own loss mitigation efforts over and above the efforts of the mortgage servicers, including more hands-on mortgage servicer oversight and management, borrower refinancing solicitations, as well as other efforts. Our loss mitigation efforts may be unsuccessful in limiting delinquencies, defaults and losses, or may not be cost effective, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Furthermore, our ability to accomplish such loss mitigation may be limited by the tax rules governing REITs.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making offerings of debt securities or additional offerings of equity securities, including through the Rights Agreement. Upon bankruptcy or liquidation, holders of our debt securities and preferred shares, if any, and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our common shares. Our preferred shares, if issued, could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend payments or both that could limit our ability to pay a dividend or other distribution to the holders of our common shares. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, holders of our common shares bear the risk of our future offerings, including through the Rights Agreement, reducing the market price of our common shares and diluting their share holdings in us.

We may invest capital in CLO warehouse facilities, otherwise known as loan accumulation facilities, or "LAFs." LAFs are generally short- to medium- term financing facilities provided by the investment bank that will ultimately serve as the arranger on a CLO transaction. Utilizing equity capital provided by the LAF investors and debt financing provided by the investment bank, LAFs acquire corporate loans and other similar corporate credit-related assets in anticipation of ultimately collateralizing a CLO transaction. This period of accumulating assets, often known as the "warehouse period," typically terminates when the CLO vehicle issues various tranches of debt and equity securities to the market, using the issuance proceeds to repay the investment bank financing. Investments in LAFs have risks similar to those applicable to investments in CLOs, and the risk of losses is magnified as a result of the leveraged and first-loss nature of these facilities. Further, in the event that the corporate credit assets accumulated by a LAF are not eligible for purchase by the planned CLO, or in the event that the planned CLO is not issued, the LAF investors may be responsible for either holding or disposing of said assets, exposing us to credit and/or mark-to-market risk. This scenario may become more likely in times of economic distress or when the loans comprising the collateral pool of such warehouse, even if still performing, may have declined materially in market value, and we may suffer a loss upon the disposition of these assets. The occurrence of any of the foregoing or similar events could affect our investments in LAFs and, consequently, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Some of the non-Agency RMBS in which we invest are collateralized by Alt-A and subprime mortgage loans, which are mortgage loans that were originated using less stringent underwriting guidelines than those used in underwriting prime mortgage loans (mortgage loans that generally conform to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac underwriting guidelines). These underwriting guidelines are more permissive as to borrower credit history or credit score, borrower debt-to-income ratio, loan-to-value ratio, and/or as to documentation (such as whether and to what extent borrower income was required to be disclosed or verified). In addition, even when specific underwriting guidelines are represented by loan originators as having been used in connection with the origination of mortgage loans, these guidelines are in many cases not followed as a result of aggressive lending practices, fraud (including borrower or appraisal fraud), or other factors. Mortgage loans that are underwritten pursuant to less stringent or looser underwriting guidelines, or that are poorly underwritten to their stated guidelines, have experienced, and should be expected to experience in the future, substantially higher rates of delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures than those experienced by mortgage loans that are underwritten in a manner more consistent with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines. Thus, because of the higher delinquency rates and losses associated with Alt-A and subprime mortgage loans, the performance of RMBS backed by Alt-A and subprime mortgage loans that we may acquire could be correspondingly adversely affected, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

Our portfolio includes securities, such as non-Agency RMBS, which are not guaranteed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or, in the case of Ginnie Mae, the U.S. Government. These securities are therefore subject to many of the risks of the respective underlying mortgage loans, as well as CRTs. A residential mortgage loan is typically secured by single-family residential property and is subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risk of loss. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property is dependent upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors, including a general economic downturn, high unemployment, high energy costs, acts of God, pandemics such as the COVID-19 pandemic, war or other geopolitical conflict, terrorism, elevated inflation, social unrest, and civil disturbances, may impair borrowers' abilities to repay their mortgage loans. In periods following home price declines, "strategic defaults" (decisions by borrowers to default on their mortgage loans despite having the ability to pay) also may become more prevalent. In addition, recent increases in mortgage rates have led to significant higher monthly costs for homeowners who have purchased their homes recently and they have also led to slower prepayments of older, more affordable mortgages, each of which could lead to an increase in defaults on the mortgage loans underlying many of our investments. In the event of defaults under mortgage loans backing any of our non-Agency RMBS or CRTs, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan. Additionally, in the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan. In many jurisdictions, legislation has been enacted that has the effect of making the foreclosure process more difficult, lengthier, and more expensive, and additional such legislation may be enacted in the future. If borrowers default on the mortgage loans backing our non-Agency RMBS or CRTs and we are unable to recover any resulting loss through the foreclosure process, it could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Similarly, other investments that we currently hold and/or may hold in the future, including MSRs and CMBS, that are not guaranteed by any entity, including any government entity or GSE, are subject to increased risks, including credit risk.

We may acquire and manage residential mortgage loans. Non-government guaranteed residential mortgage loans, including subprime, non-performing, and sub-performing mortgage loans, are subject to increased risk of loss. Unlike Agency RMBS, residential mortgage loans generally are not guaranteed by the U.S. Government or any GSE, though in some cases they may benefit from private mortgage insurance. Additionally, by directly acquiring residential mortgage loans, we do not receive the structural credit enhancements that benefit senior tranches of RMBS. A residential mortgage loan is directly exposed to losses resulting from default. Therefore, the value of the underlying property, the creditworthiness and financial position of the borrower, and the priority and enforceability of the lien will significantly impact the value of such mortgage loan. In the event of a foreclosure, we may assume direct ownership of the underlying real estate. The liquidation proceeds upon sale of such real estate may not be sufficient to recover our cost basis in the loan, and any costs or delays involved in the foreclosure or liquidation process may increase losses. Residential mortgage loans are also subject to property damage caused by hazards, such as earthquakes or environmental hazards, not covered by standard property insurance policies or "special hazard risk," and to reduction in a borrower's mortgage debt by a bankruptcy court, or "bankruptcy risk." In addition, claims may be assessed against us on account of our position as a mortgage holder or property owner, including assignee liability, environmental hazards, and other liabilities. We could also be responsible for property taxes. In some cases, these liabilities may be "recourse liabilities" or may otherwise lead to losses in excess of the purchase price of the related mortgage or property.

Some of our assets are fixed rate securities or have a fixed rate component (such as RMBS backed by hybrid ARMs). This means that the interest we earn on these assets will not vary over time based upon changes in a short-term interest rate index. Although the interest we earn on our RMBS backed by ARMs and many of our CLO investments generally will adjust for changing interest rates, such interest rate adjustments may not occur as quickly as the interest rate adjustments to any related borrowings, and such interest rate adjustments will generally be subject to interest rate caps, which potentially could cause such assets to acquire many of the characteristics of fixed rate securities during periods of rising or high interest rates. We generally fund our targeted assets with borrowings whose interest rates reset frequently, and as a result we generally have an interest rate mismatch between our assets and liabilities, which could cause our net interest margin (the spread between the average yield on our assets and our average borrowing costs) to compress, or even become negative. While our interest rate hedges are intended to mitigate a portion of this mismatch, the use of interest rate hedges also introduces the risk of other interest rate mismatches and exposures, as will the use of other financing techniques. Additionally, to the extent cash flows from RMBS we hold are reinvested in new RMBS, the spread between the yields of the new RMBS and available borrowing rates may also compress or become negative. If our net interest margin compresses or becomes negative, our business, cash flow, financial condition, results of operations, and ability to pay dividends to our shareholders could be materially affected. In fact, in 2022 and parts of 2023, which saw periods of rising interest rates, we experienced compressed and in some cases negative net interest margin on many of our assets. Fixed income assets, including many RMBS, typically decline in value if interest rates increase. If long-term rates were to increase significantly, not only would the market value of these assets be expected to decline, but these assets could lengthen in duration because borrowers would be less likely to prepay their mortgages. 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. Between March 2020 and March 2022, the U.S. Federal Reserve, or the "Federal Reserve," maintained the target range for the federal funds rate at 0.00%-0.25%. Beginning in March 2022, however, the Federal Reserve began a series of interest rate hikes in response to historically high inflation, and as of January 31, 2024, the target range for the federal funds rate was 5.25%-5.50%. Moreover, concerns over the United States' debt ceiling and budget-deficit have increased the possibility of downgrades by rating agencies to the U.S. government's credit rating, which could cause interest rates and borrowing costs to rise further. The future path of interest rates is highly uncertain. While we opportunistically hedge our exposure to changes in interest rates, such hedging may be limited by the tax rules governing REITs, and we can provide no assurance that our hedges will be successful, or that we will be able to enter into or maintain such hedges. As a result, interest rate fluctuations can cause significant losses, reductions in income, and can limit the cash available to pay dividends to our shareholders.

ARMs and hybrid ARMs are typically subject to periodic and lifetime interest rate caps. Periodic interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase during any given period. Lifetime interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase through the maturity of the loan. Our borrowings typically are not subject to similar restrictions. Accordingly, the ARMs and hybrid ARMs that we hold (or that back RMBS that we hold) expose us to interest rate mismatch risks. See "-Interest rate mismatches between our assets and our borrowings may reduce our income during periods of changing interest rates, and increases in interest rates could adversely affect the value of our assets."

The U.S. Government, through the U.S. Treasury, FHA, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or "FDIC," has at various points in time, including in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and may again in the future, implement programs designed to provide homeowners with assistance in avoiding mortgage loan foreclosures. The programs may involve, among other things, the modification of mortgage loans to reduce the principal amount of the loans or the rate of interest payable on the loans, or to extend the payment terms of the loans. Loan modification and refinance programs may adversely affect the performance of Agency and non-Agency RMBS. In the case of non-Agency RMBS and MSRs, a significant number of loan modifications with respect to a given security, including those related to principal forgiveness and coupon reduction, could negatively impact the realized yields and cash flows on such security. Similarly, principal forgiveness and/or coupon reduction could negatively impact the performance of any residential mortgage loans, RMBS, or MSRs. In addition, it is also likely that loan modifications would result in increased prepayments on some RMBS. See "-Prepayment rates can change, adversely affecting the performance of our assets," for information relating to the impact of prepayments on our business. The U.S. Congress and various state and local legislatures may pass mortgage-related legislation that would affect our business, including legislation that would permit limited assignee liability for certain violations in the mortgage loan origination process, legislation that would allow judicial modification of loan principal in the event of personal bankruptcy, or legislation relating to the handling of escrow accounts. We cannot predict whether or in what form Congress or the various state and local legislatures may enact legislation affecting our business or whether any such legislation will require us to change our practices or make changes in our portfolio in the future. These changes, if required, could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, particularly if we make such changes in response to new or amended laws, regulations or ordinances in any state where we acquire a significant portion of our mortgage loans, or if such changes result in us being held responsible for any violations in the mortgage loan origination process. The existing loan modification programs, together with future legislative or regulatory actions, including possible amendments to the bankruptcy laws, which result in the modification of outstanding residential mortgage loans and/or changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for refinancing mortgage loans with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae, may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, our assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

Our business is materially affected by conditions in the residential mortgage market, the residential real estate market, the financial markets, and the economy, including inflation, interest rates, energy costs, unemployment, geopolitical issues, concerns over the creditworthiness of governments worldwide and the stability of the global banking system. In particular, the residential mortgage market in the U.S. has experienced a variety of difficulties and challenging economic conditions in the past, including defaults, credit losses, and liquidity concerns. Certain commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, loan origination companies and mortgage-related investment vehicles incurred extensive losses from exposure to the residential mortgage market as a result of these difficulties and conditions. These factors, along with the abrupt failure of more than one regional bank in the U.S., have impacted, and may in the future impact, investor perception of the risks associated with RMBS, other real estate-related securities and various other asset classes in which we may invest. As a result, values for RMBS, other real estate-related securities and various other asset classes in which we may invest have experienced, and may in the future experience, significant volatility. Any deterioration of the mortgage market and investor perception of the risks associated with RMBS, residential mortgage loans, other real estate-related securities, and various other assets that we acquire could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

We may invest in second-lien mortgage loans or RMBS backed by such loans. If a borrower defaults on a second lien mortgage loan or on its senior debt (i.e., a first-lien loan, in the case of a residential mortgage loan), or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, such loan will be satisfied only after all senior debt is paid in full. As a result, if we directly or indirectly invest in second-lien mortgage loans and the underlying borrower defaults, we may lose all or a significant part of our investment.

We may invest in credit risk transfer securities, or "CRTs." CRTs are designed to transfer a portion of the mortgage credit risk of a pool of insured or guaranteed mortgage loans from the insurer or guarantor of such loans to CRT investors. In a CRT transaction, interest and/or principal of the CRT is written off following certain credit events, such as delinquencies, defaults, and/or realized losses, on the underlying mortgage pool. To date, the vast majority of CRTs consist of risk sharing transactions issued by the GSEs, namely Fannie Mae's Connecticut Avenue Securities program, or "CAS," and Freddie Mac's Structured Agency Credit Risk program, or "STACR." These securities have historically been unsecured and subject to the credit risk of the underlying mortgage pool. In the future, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may issue CRTs with a variety of other structures.

Investments in corporate CLO securities involve certain risks. Corporate CLOs are generally backed by a pool of corporate loans or similar corporate credit-related assets that serve as collateral. We and other investors in CLO securities ultimately bear the credit risk of the underlying collateral. Most CLOs are issued in multiple tranches, offering investors various maturity and credit risk characteristics, often categorized as senior, mezzanine and subordinated/equity according to their relative seniority and degree of risk. If the relevant collateral defaults or otherwise underperforms, payments to the more senior tranches of such securitizations take precedence over those of more junior tranches, such as mezzanine debt and equity tranches, which are the focus of our investment strategy. CLOs present risks similar to those of other types of credit investments, including credit, interest rate and prepayment risks. The corporate loans that underlie our CLO investments may become nonperforming or impaired for a variety of reasons. Nonperforming or impaired loans may require substantial workout negotiations or restructurings that may result in significant delays in repayment, a significant reduction in the interest rate, and/or a significant write-down of the principal of the loan. A wide range of factors could adversely affect the ability of an underlying corporate borrower to make interest or other payments on its loan. The corporate issuers of the loans or securities underlying our CLO investments may be subject to an increased risk of default depending on certain micro- or macro-economic conditions, such as economic recessions, heightened interest rates and/or inflation, and other conditions. Such defaults and losses, especially those in excess of the market's or our expectations, would have a negative impact on the fair value of our CLO investments, and reduce the cash flows that we receive from our CLO investments, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. In addition, if a CLO in which we invest experiences an event of default as a result of failure to make a payment when due, erosion of the underlying collateral, or for other reasons, the CLO would be subject to the possibility of liquidation. In such cases, the risks are heightened that the collateral underlying the CLO may not be able to be readily liquidated, or that when liquidated, the resulting proceeds would be insufficient to redeem the CLO mezzanine debt and equity tranches that are the focus of our investment strategy. CLO equity tranches often suffer a loss of all of their value in these circumstances, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Furthermore, following an event of default by a CLO, the holders of CLO mezzanine debt and equity tranches typically have limited rights regarding decisions made with respect to the underlying collateral, with the result that such decisions might favor the more senior tranches of the CLO.

The assets underlying our CLO investments are generally rated for creditworthiness by one or more nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations ("NRSROs"), including Moody's, Standard and Poor's, and Fitch. These assets generally consist of lower-rated first lien corporate loans, although certain CLO structures may also allow for limited exposure to other asset classes including unsecured loans, second lien loans, or corporate bonds. Corporate issuers of lower-rated debt securities may be highly leveraged and may not have available to them more traditional methods of financing. During economic downturns or sustained periods of rising interest rates, issuers of lower-rated debt securities may be likely to experience financial stress, especially if such issuers are highly leveraged. In such periods, the market for lower-rated debt securities could be severely disrupted, adversely affecting the value of such securities, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. The risk of loss for lower-rated debt securities is also magnified to the extent that such securities are unsecured or subordinated to more senior creditors. Lower-rated debt securities generally have limited liquidity and limited secondary market support. Second lien loans are secured by liens on the collateral securing the loan that are subordinated to the liens of at least one other class of obligations of the related obligor. Thus, the ability of the second lien debtholders to exercise remedies after a second lien loan becomes a defaulted obligation is subordinated to, and limited by, the rights of the senior creditors holding such other classes of obligations. In many circumstances, the second lien debtholders may be prevented from foreclosing on the collateral securing a second lien loan until the related first lien loan is paid in full. Moreover, any amounts that might be realized as a result of collection efforts or in connection with a bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving a second lien loan must generally be turned over to the first lien secured lender until the first lien secured lender has realized the full value of its own claims. In addition, certain second lien loans contain provisions requiring the related lien to be released in certain circumstances. These lien and payment obligation subordination provisions may materially and adversely affect the ability of the second lien debtholders to realize value from second lien loans. In the event of a bankruptcy or insolvency of an issuer of a loan or of an underlying asset held by a CLO in which we invest, a court or other governmental entity may determine that the related claims held by such CLO are not valid, or are subject to significant modification. In addition, any payments previously received by such CLO could be subject to avoidance as a "preference" if made within a certain period of time (which may be as long as one year under U.S. Federal bankruptcy law or even longer under state laws) before insolvency. The underlying assets in a CLO in which we are invested may be subject to various laws for the protection of debtors in other jurisdictions, including the jurisdiction of incorporation of the issuer or borrower of such underlying assets and, if different, the jurisdiction from which it conducts business and in which it holds assets, any of which may adversely affect such issuer's or borrower's ability to make, or a creditor's ability to enforce, payment in full, on a timely basis or at all. These insolvency considerations will differ depending on the jurisdiction in which an issuer or borrower or the related underlying assets are located and may differ depending on the legal status of the issuer or borrower.

Even though we expect that most of our CLO mezzanine debt investments will have floating rate coupons, these and other of our CLO investments are still exposed to interest rate risk. There can be significant mismatches between the timing and frequency of coupon resets on the floating rate CLO debt tranches and the underlying floating rate corporate loans, and furthermore some of the underlying corporate loans may bear fixed coupon rates. When interest rates are low but increasing, variations between interest rate floors on the CLO debt tranches and the underlying corporate loans can reduce the amount of excess interest available for payment to the CLO debt and equity tranches. This reduction in excess interest could adversely impact our CLO equity cashflows and valuations, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

The underlying collateral of the corporate CLO securities in which we invest may include loans to smaller companies, or "middle market" loans, which may carry more inherent risks than loans to larger, publicly traded entities. Compared to larger companies, these middle-market companies tend to have more limited access to capital, weaker financial positions, narrower product lines, and tend to be more vulnerable to competitors' actions and market conditions, as well as to general economic downturns. As a result, the securities issued by CLOs that hold significant investments in middle-market loans are generally considered riskier than securities issued by CLOs that primarily invest in broadly syndicated loans. In addition, "covenant-lite" loans may comprise a significant portion of the underlying collateral of the CLOs in which we invest. Generally, covenant-lite loans provide the obligor with more freedom to take actions that could negatively impact their lenders because the obligor's covenants are incurrence-based and not maintenance-based, which means that they are only tested and can only be breached following an affirmative action of the borrower, rather than by a deterioration in the borrower's financial condition. At times, covenant-lite loans have represented a significant majority of the market. To the extent that the corporate CLO securities in which we invest hold covenant-lite loans, we may have a greater risk of loss on such investments as compared to investments in CLOs holding loans with more robust covenants.

As part of the ordinary management of its portfolio, a CLO will typically generate cash flow from asset repayments and sales that is reinvested into substitute assets, subject to compliance with its investment tests and certain other conditions. If the CLO collateral manager causes the CLO to purchase substitute assets at a lower yield than those initially acquired, the excess interest-related cash flow available for distribution to the CLO equity tranches would decline. In addition, prepayment rates of the assets underlying a CLO are driven by a number of factors, including changing interest rates and other factors that are beyond our control. Furthermore, in most CLO transactions, CLO debt investors are subject to the risk that the holders of a majority of the equity tranche can direct a call or refinancing of a CLO, causing such CLO's outstanding CLO debt securities to be repaid at par earlier than expected. This and other factors can cause considerable uncertainty in the average lives of the CLO tranches in which we invest.

Because we do not have fixed guidelines for diversification, we do not have any limitations on the ability to invest in any one CLO, and our investments may be concentrated in relatively few CLOs, CLOs that have similar risk profiles (including by being concentrated in a limited number of industries), CLOs where there is an overlap of underlying corporate issuers or CLOs that are managed by the same collateral manager. The overlap of underlying corporate issuers is often more prevalent across CLOs of the same year of origination, as well as across CLOs managed by the same asset manager or collateral manager. To the extent that our CLO investments are less diversified, we are susceptible to a greater risk of loss if one or more of the CLOs in which we are invested performs poorly, or in the event a CLO collateral manager were to fail, experience the loss of key employees or sell its business. To the extent we invest in CLOs that have a high level of overlap of underlying corporate obligors, there is a greater likelihood of experiencing multiple defaults in our CLO portfolio, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

The failure by a CLO in which we invest to satisfy certain tests, including with respect to adequate collateralization and/or interest coverage, would generally lead to a reduction in the payments made to holders of its mezzanine debt and equity tranches. In a typical corporate CLO, nonperforming assets, or performing assets rated "CCC+" or lower (or their equivalent) in excess of applicable limits, typically do not receive full par credit for purposes of calculation of the CLO's overcollateralization tests. As a result, if an asset were to default, or an asset's credit rating were to decrease to a lower credit rating level, also known as "negative rating migration," it could cause a CLO to move out of compliance with some or all of its overcollateralization tests. CLOs are also generally subject to interest coverage tests, under each of which the interest income generated by the underlying assets is compared to the interest owed to a given CLO tranche and all tranches more senior to it. To the extent that any overcollateralization tests or interest coverage tests are breached, cash flows could be diverted away from the CLO mezzanine debt and equity tranches in favor of the more senior CLO debt tranches until and unless such breaches are cured, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

Our investments in CLO debt tranches are subject to credit rating upgrades or downgrades by the NRSROs. Ratings downgrades on our CLO debt investments may result in our investments being viewed as riskier than they were previously thought to be. This perception of increased riskiness resulting from a downgrade can result in adverse impacts to the market value and liquidity of our CLO debt investments, as well as reduce the availability or increase the cost of repo financing for our CLO debt investments.

CLOs are often governed by a complex series of legal documents and contracts. As a result, the risk of dispute over the interpretation or enforceability of the documentation may be higher relative to other types of investments. Further, the complex structure of a particular security may not be fully understood at the time of investment and may produce disputes with the issuer or unexpected investment results, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

We invest in CLO securities issued by CLOs that are managed by collateral managers unaffiliated with us, and we are dependent on the skill and expertise of such managers. While the actions of the CLO collateral managers may significantly affect the return on our investments, we typically do not have any direct contractual relationship with these collateral managers. While we also rely on these collateral managers to act in the best interests of the CLOs in which we invest, there can be no assurance that such collateral managers will do so. Moreover, such collateral managers are subject to fiduciary duties owed to other classes of notes besides those in which we invest, and they may have other incentives to manage the CLO portfolios in a manner that disadvantages the particular classes of notes in which we are invested. Furthermore, since the CLO issuer often provides an indemnity to its collateral manager, the CLO tranches we hold may ultimately bear the burden of any legal claims brought against the collateral manager, including any legal claims brought by us. In addition, the CLOs in which we invest are generally not registered as investment companies under the Investment Company Act. As investors in these CLOs, we are not afforded the protections that shareholders in an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act would have. We may only have limited information regarding the underlying assets held by the CLOs in which we invest, and collateral managers may not identify or report issues relating to the underlying assets on a timely basis (or at all) to enable us to take appropriate measures to manage our risks. Further, none of the information contained in certain monthly reports nor any other financial information furnished to us as an investor in a corporate CLO is audited and or reviewed, nor is an opinion expressed, by an independent public accountant. Collateral managers are subject to removal or replacement by other holders of CLO securities without our consent and may also voluntarily resign as collateral manager or assign their role as collateral manager to another entity. The removal, replacement, resignation, or assignment of any particular CLO manager's role could adversely affect the returns on the CLO securities in which we invest, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

We expect to focus our CLO investment activity in mezzanine debt and equity tranches, which have less liquidity than many other securities, including as a result of lower trading volumes, transfer restrictions, and their bespoke nature. This illiquidity results in price volatility and can make it more difficult to value or sell these securities if the need arises, which could require us to realize a greater loss if we are ever required to liquidate such assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

The CLOs in which we invest incur significant operating expenses, including but not limited to collateral management fees, administrative expenses, and other operating expenses. As the most subordinated tranche, the CLO equity tranche typically bears the primary burden of these expenses, although such expenses can also be borne by mezzanine debt tranches to the extent that the CLO equity tranche suffers a total principal loss.

While we invest primarily in CLOs that hold underlying U.S. assets, we may also invest in corporate CLOs that hold non-U.S. assets, and we expect that many of the CLO issuers in which we invest will be domiciled outside the United States. Investing directly or indirectly in non-U.S. issuers may expose us to additional risks, including political and social instability, expropriation, imposition of foreign taxes, less developed bankruptcy laws, difficulty in enforcing contractual obligations, lack of uniform accounting and auditing standards, currency fluctuations and greater price volatility. Further, we, and the CLOs in which we invest, may have difficulty enforcing creditor's rights in foreign jurisdictions. A portion of our CLO investments (and the income and gains received by us in respect of such investments) may be denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Accordingly, changes in foreign currency exchange rates may materially adversely affect the value of these investments.

Rising interest rates generally reduce the demand for mortgage loans due to the higher cost of borrowing. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans originated may affect the volume of targeted assets available to us, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives. If rising interest rates cause us to be unable to acquire a sufficient volume of our targeted assets with a yield that is above our borrowing cost, our ability to satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and pay dividends to our shareholders may be materially and adversely affected.

Our ability to fund our operations, meet financial obligations, and finance targeted asset acquisitions may be impacted by an inability to secure and maintain our financing through repurchase agreements or other types of borrowings we may enter into from time to time in the future with our counterparties. Because repurchase agreements are generally short-term transactions, lenders may respond to adverse market conditions in a manner that makes it more difficult for us to renew or replace on a continuous basis our maturing short-term borrowings and have, and may continue to, impose more onerous conditions when rolling such repurchase agreements. Our lenders are primarily large global financial institutions, with exposures both to global financial markets and to more localized conditions. In addition to borrowing from large banks, we borrow from smaller non-bank financial institutions. Whether because of a global or local financial crisis or other circumstances, such as if one or more of our lenders experiences severe financial difficulties, they or other lenders could become unwilling or unable to provide us with financing, could increase the haircut required for such financing, or could increase the costs of that financing. Moreover, we are currently party to short-term borrowings (in the form of repurchase agreements) and there can be no assurance that we will be able to replace these borrowings, or "roll" them, as they mature on a continuous basis and it may be more difficult for us to obtain debt financing on favorable terms, or at all. If we are not able to renew our existing repurchase agreements or other types of borrowings we may enter into from time to time or arrange for new financing on terms acceptable to us, or if we default on our financial covenants, are otherwise unable to access funds under our financing arrangements, or if we are required to post more collateral or face larger haircuts, we may have to dispose of assets at significantly depressed prices and at inopportune times, which could cause significant losses, and may also force us to curtail our asset acquisition activities. Similarly, if we were to move a financing from one counterparty to another that was subject to a larger haircut we would have to repay more cash to the original counterparty than we would be able to borrow from the new counterparty. To the extent that we might be compelled to liquidate qualifying real estate assets to repay debts, our compliance with the REIT asset tests, income tests, and distribution requirements could be negatively affected, which could jeopardize our qualification as a REIT. Losing our REIT qualification would cause us to be subject to U.S. federal income tax (and any applicable state and local taxes) on all of our income and decrease profitability and cash available to pay dividends to our shareholders. Any such forced liquidations could also materially adversely affect our ability to maintain our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. In addition, if there is a contraction in the overall availability of financing for our assets, including if the regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders change or our shareholders' equity decreases to levels that make us a less attractive financing counterparty, our lenders may significantly increase the cost of the financing that they provide to us, increase the amounts of collateral they require as a condition to providing us with financing, or even cease providing us with financing. Our lenders also have revised, and may continue to revise, their eligibility requirements for the types of assets that they are willing to finance or the terms of such financing arrangements, including increased haircuts and requiring additional cash collateral, based on, among other factors, the regulatory environment and their management of actual and perceived risk, particularly with respect to assignee liability. Moreover, the amount of financing that we receive under our financing agreements will be directly related to our lenders' valuation of the financed assets subject to such agreements. Typically, the master repurchase agreements that govern our borrowings under repurchase agreements grant the lender the right to reevaluate the fair market value of the financed assets subject to such repurchase agreements at any time. If a lender determines that the net decrease in the value of the portfolio of financed assets is greater in magnitude than any applicable threshold, it will generally initiate a margin call. In such cases, a lender's valuations of the financed assets may be different than the values that we ascribe to these assets and may be influenced by recent asset sales at distressed levels by forced sellers. A valid margin call requires us to transfer cash or additional qualifying collateral to a lender or to repay a portion of the outstanding borrowings. If we were to dispute the validity of a margin call from a lender under one of our repo agreements and refuse to deliver margin collateral as a result, a lender could still send us a notice of default. In this situation, such lender will have possession of the financed assets, and might still decide to exercise its contractual remedies, despite the margin dispute. In the event of our default, our lenders or derivative counterparties can accelerate our indebtedness, terminate our derivative contracts (potentially on unfavorable terms requiring additional payments, including additional fees and costs), increase our borrowing rates, liquidate our collateral, and terminate our ability to borrow. In certain cases, a default on one repo agreement or derivative agreement (whether caused by a failure to satisfy margin calls or another event of default) can trigger "cross defaults" on other such agreements. In addition, if the market value of our derivative contracts with a derivative counterparty declines in value, we generally will be subject to a margin call by the derivative counterparty. Significant margin calls and/or increased repo haircuts could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, business, liquidity, and ability to make distributions to our shareholders, and could cause the value of our common shares to decline. During March and April of 2020, we observed that many of our financing agreement counterparties assigned lower valuations to certain of our assets, resulting in us having to pay cash to satisfy margin calls, which were higher than historical levels. In addition, during March and April of 2020 we also experienced an increase in haircuts on repurchase agreements that we rolled. A sufficiently deep and/or rapid increase in margin calls or haircuts would have an adverse impact on our liquidity. Consequently, depending on market conditions at the relevant time, we may have to rely on additional equity issuances to meet our capital and financing needs, which may be dilutive to our shareholders, or we may have to rely on less efficient forms of debt financing that consume a larger portion of our cash flow from operations, thereby reducing funds available for our operations, future business opportunities, cash distributions to our shareholders, and other purposes. We cannot assure you that we will have access to such equity or debt capital on favorable terms (including, without limitation, cost and term) at the desired times, or at all, which may cause us to curtail our asset acquisition activities and/or dispose of assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, or in the worst case, cause our insolvency.

Our operating results will depend in large part on the difference between the income from our assets, net of credit losses, and financing costs. We anticipate that, in many cases, the income from our assets will respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Consequently, changes in interest rates, particularly short-term interest rates, to the extent not offset by our interest rate hedges, may significantly influence our financial results.

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our common shares is our dividend rate (or expected future dividend rate) as a percentage of our common share price, relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates continue to increase or do not decline from their current levels, prospective investors may demand a higher dividend rate on our common shares or seek alternative investments paying higher dividends or interest. We cannot assure you that we will achieve results that will allow us to increase our dividend rate in response to market interest rate increases. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions can affect the market price of our common shares independent of the effects such conditions may have on our portfolio. For instance, if interest rates rise without an increase in our dividend rate, the market price of our common shares could decrease because potential investors may require a higher dividend yield on our common shares as market rates on interest-bearing instruments such as bonds rise. In addition, to the extent we have variable rate debt, such as our repo financing, rising interest rates would result in increased interest expense on this variable rate debt, thereby adversely affecting our cash flow and our ability to service our indebtedness and pay dividends to our shareholders.

We have entered into repurchase agreements under which we nominally sell certain of our RMBS to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase the sold assets. We believe that, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, these transactions will be treated as secured debt and we will be treated as the tax owner of the RMBS that are the subject of any such repurchase agreement, notwithstanding that such agreements may transfer record ownership of such assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could successfully assert that we do not own the RMBS during the term of the repurchase agreement, in which case we could fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT.

We depend upon the availability of adequate funding and capital for our operations. To maintain our status as a REIT, we are required to distribute to our shareholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income annually, determined excluding any net capital gains and without regard to the deduction for dividends paid. As a result, we are not able to retain much or any of our earnings for new investments. We cannot assure you that any, or sufficient, funding or capital will be available to us in the future on terms that are acceptable to us. In the event that we cannot obtain sufficient funding and capital on acceptable terms,there may be a negative impact on the value of our common shares and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, and you may lose part or all of your investment.

Our management objectives and policies do not place a limit on the amount of capital used to support, or the exposure to (by any other measure), any individual asset or any group of assets with similar characteristics or risks. As a result, our portfolio may be concentrated in a small number of assets or may be otherwise undiversified, increasing the risk of loss and the magnitude of potential losses to us and our shareholders if one or more of these assets perform poorly. For example, the properties underlying our portfolio of mortgage-related assets may at times be concentrated in certain sectors that are subject to higher risk of foreclosure, or may be concentrated in a limited number of geographic locations, and our investments may be concentrated in certain of our targeted asset classes such that they are substantial relative to our total equity. To the extent that our portfolio is concentrated in any one region or type of security, downturns or other significant events or developments relating generally to such region or type of security, such as natural disasters, may result in defaults on a number of our assets within a short time period, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

Our management agreement with our Manager was negotiated between related parties, and its terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party. Various potential and actual conflicts of interest may arise from the activities of Ellington and its affiliates by virtue of the fact that our Manager is controlled by Ellington. Termination of our management agreement without cause, including termination for poor performance or non-renewal, is subject to several conditions which may make such a termination difficult and costly. The management agreement has a current term that expires on September 24, 2024, and will be automatically renewed for successive one-year terms thereafter unless notice of non-renewal is delivered by either party to the other party at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the then current term. The management agreement provides that it may be terminated by us based on performance upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our Board of Trustees, or by a vote of the holders of at least a majority of our outstanding common shares, based either upon unsatisfactory performance by our Manager that is materially detrimental to us or upon a determination by our independent trustees that the management fees payable to our Manager are not fair, subject to our Manager's right to prevent such a fee-based termination by accepting a mutually acceptable reduction of management fees. In the event we terminate the management agreement as discussed above or elect not to renew the management agreement, we will be required to pay our Manager a termination fee equal to 5% of our shareholders' equity as of the month-end preceding the date of the notice of termination or non-renewal. These provisions will increase the effective cost to us of terminating the management agreement, thereby adversely affecting our ability to terminate our Manager without cause. Pursuant to the management agreement, our Manager will not assume any responsibility other than to render the services called for thereunder and will not be responsible for any action of our Board of Trustees in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. Under the terms of the management agreement, our Manager, Ellington, and their affiliates and each of their officers, directors, trustees, members, shareholders, partners, managers, investment and risk management committee members, employees, agents, successors and assigns, will not be liable to us for acts or omissions performed in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement, except because of acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, fraud or reckless disregard of their duties under the management agreement. In addition, we will indemnify our Manager, Ellington, and their affiliates and each of their officers, directors, trustees, members, shareholders, partners, managers, investment and risk management committee members, employees, agents, successors and assigns, with respect to all expenses, losses, damages, liabilities, demands, charges and claims arising from acts of our Manager not constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, fraud or material breach or reckless disregard of duties, performed in good faith in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement.

Our ability to achieve our objectives depends on our Manager's ability to identify and acquire assets that meet our asset criteria. Accomplishing our objectives is largely a function of our Manager's structuring of our investment process, our access to financing on acceptable terms, and general market conditions. Our shareholders do not have input into our investment decisions. All of these factors increase the uncertainty, and thus the risk, of investing in our common shares. The senior management team of our Manager has substantial responsibilities under the management agreement. In order to implement certain strategies, our Manager may need to hire, train, supervise, and manage new employees successfully. Any failure to manage our future growth effectively could materially adversely effect our business, financial condition and results of operations, our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders and our ability to maintain our qualification as a REIT.