Ellington Financial (EFC) Risk Factors

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 stockholders do not have input into our investment decisions. All of these factors increase the uncertainty, and thus the risk, of investing in our common or preferred stock. 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. In addition, since the closing of the Longbridge Transaction in October 2022, our Manager is also required to provide oversight of Longbridge's management and business, and since the closing of the Arlington Merger in December 2023, our Manager is also required to manage the investment portfolio acquired from Arlington. Any failure to manage our future growth effectively could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, our ability to maintain our qualification as a REIT, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

We purchase and sell Agency RMBS through TBAs and recognize income or gains from the disposition of those TBAs, through dollar roll transactions or otherwise, and may continue to do so in the future. While there is no direct authority with respect to the qualification of TBAs as real estate assets or U.S. Government securities for purposes of the REIT 75% asset test or the qualification of income or gains from dispositions of TBAs as gains from the sale of real property or other qualifying income for purposes of the REIT 75% gross income test, we treat the GAAP value of our TBAs under which we contract to purchase to-be-announced Agency RMBS ("long TBAs") as qualifying assets for purposes of the REIT 75% asset test, and we treat income and gains from our long TBAs as qualifying income for purposes of the REIT 75% gross income test, based on an opinion of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP substantially to the effect that (i) for purposes of the REIT asset tests, our ownership of a long TBA should be treated as ownership of real estate assets, and (ii) for purposes of the REIT 75% gross income test, any gain recognized by us in connection with the settlement of our long TBAs should be treated as gain from the sale or disposition of an interest in mortgages on real property. Opinions of counsel are not binding on the IRS, and no assurance can be given that the IRS will not successfully challenge the conclusions set forth in such opinions. In addition, it must be emphasized that the opinion of counsel is based on various assumptions relating to our TBAs and is conditioned upon fact-based representations and covenants made by our management regarding our TBAs. No assurance can be given that the IRS would not assert that such assets or income are not qualifying assets or income. If the IRS were to successfully challenge the opinion of counsel, we could be subject to a penalty tax or we could fail to remain qualified as a REIT if a sufficient portion of our assets consists of TBAs or a sufficient portion of our income consists of income or gains from the disposition of TBAs.

The values of some of the assets in our portfolio are not readily determinable. We value the vast majority of these assets monthly at fair value, as determined in good faith by our Manager, subject to the oversight of our Manager's valuation committee. Because such valuations are inherently uncertain, may fluctuate over short periods of time, especially during periods of elevated market volatility, and may be based on estimates, our Manager's determinations of fair value may differ from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these assets existed or from the prices at which trades occur. Furthermore, we may not obtain third-party valuations for all of our assets. Changes in the fair value of our assets directly impact our net income through recording unrealized appreciation or depreciation of our investments and derivative instruments, and so our Manager's determination of fair value has a material impact on our net income. While in many cases our Manager's determination of the fair value of our assets is based on valuations provided by third-party dealers and pricing services, our Manager can and does value assets based upon its judgment and such valuations may differ from those provided by third-party dealers and pricing services. Valuations of certain assets are often difficult to obtain or are unreliable and certain of our credit and MSR interests, including our Forward MSR-related investments and our HMBS MSR Equivalent, trade infrequently and are illiquid. In general, dealers and pricing services heavily disclaim their valuations. Additionally, dealers and pricing services may claim to furnish valuations only as an accommodation and without special compensation, and so they may disclaim any and all liability for any direct, incidental, or consequential damages arising out of any inaccuracy or incompleteness in valuations, including any act of negligence or breach of any warranty. Depending on the complexity and illiquidity of an asset, valuations of the same asset can vary substantially from one dealer or pricing service to another. Higher valuations of our assets have the effect of increasing the amount of base management fees and incentive fees we pay to our Manager. Therefore, conflicts of interest exist because our Manager is involved in the determination of the fair value of our assets. Market-based inputs are generally the preferred source of values for purposes of measuring the fair value of our assets under U.S. GAAP. However, the markets for our investments have experienced, and could in the future experience, extreme volatility, reduced transaction volume and liquidity, and disruption as a result of certain events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which has made, and could in the future make, it more difficult for our Manager, and for the third-party dealers and pricing services that we use, to rely on market-based inputs in connection with the valuation of our assets under U.S. GAAP. Furthermore, in determining the fair value of our assets, our Manager uses proprietary models that require the use of a significant amount of judgment and the application of various assumptions including, but not limited to, assumptions concerning future prepayment rates, interest rates, default rates and loss severities. These assumptions might be especially difficult to project accurately during periods of economic disruption. The fair value of certain of our investments may fluctuate over short periods of time, and our Manager's determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these investments existed. Our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected if our Manager's fair value determinations of these assets were materially different from the values that would exist if a ready market existed for these assets.

Our portfolio includes non-Agency RMBS which are backed by residential mortgage loans that do not conform to the Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac underwriting guidelines, including subprime, manufactured housing, Alt-A, prime jumbo, non-QM, and single-family-rental mortgage loans, as well as CRTs. Consequently, the principal and interest on non-Agency RMBS and CRTs, unlike those on Agency RMBS, are not guaranteed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or, in the case of Ginnie Mae, the U.S. Government. Non-Agency RMBS are subject to many of the risks of the respective underlying mortgage loans. 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 stockholders.

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, residential mortgage loans and MSRs. In the case of non-Agency RMBS, 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 we own. See "-Prepayment rates can change, adversely affecting the performance of our assets." 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 related 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 stockholders, 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 stockholders.

Reverse borrowers often have an undrawn line of credit entitling the borrower to demand future draws from the servicer. A substantial portion of reverse MSR values comes from the expectation that while the servicer funds such future draws at par, it will be able to securitize and sell such future draws at a premium. Therefore, lower than expected borrower draw rates may have a negative impact on reverse MSR values.

Both default frequency and default severity of mortgage loans are highly dependent on the quality of the mortgage servicer. We depend on the effectiveness of servicing, including loss mitigation efforts of mortgage servicers and in some cases "special servicers," which are mortgage servicers who specialize in servicing non-performing loans. If mortgage servicers are not vigilant in encouraging borrowers to make their monthly payments, the borrowers are far less likely to make those payments. Additionally, servicers can perform loan modifications, which could potentially impact the value of our securities. The failure of servicers to effectively service the mortgage loans underlying the securities in our investment portfolio could negatively impact the value of our investments and our performance. In addition, for the whole mortgage loans that we own directly, we may engage in our own loss mitigation efforts over and beyond the efforts of the mortgage servicers, including more hands-on mortgage servicer oversight and management, borrower refinancing solicitations, as well as other efforts. Our and our mortgage servicers' loss mitigation efforts may be unsuccessful in limiting delinquencies, defaults, and losses, or may not be cost effective, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. Our ability to accomplish such loss mitigation may also be limited by the tax rules governing REITs. Servicer quality and effectiveness are of particular importance in the performance of non-agency loans and MBS. If a servicer is performing inadequately or goes out of business, the transfer of servicing to a new servicer takes time, and loans may become delinquent because of confusion or lack of attention. We have already experienced this phenomenon related to servicing transfers on certain of our mortgage loans. When servicing is transferred, the prior servicer's advances (e.g., of delinquent interest, principal, taxes, or insurance) are often not recaptured efficiently by the new servicer, which in the case of securitized loans may have an adverse effect on non-agency MBS credit support. In the case of securitized loans, servicers may be required to advance interest on delinquent loans to the extent the servicer deems those advances recoverable. However, in the event the servicer does not advance such funds, interest may be interrupted, even on more senior securities. Servicers may also advance more than is in fact recoverable once a defaulted loan is disposed, and the loss to the securitization trust may be greater than the outstanding principal balance of that loan (i.e., greater than 100% loss severity). Finally, an increase 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 stockholders.

Our investments in distressed debt and equity have a significant risk of loss, and our efforts to protect these investments may involve large costs and may not be successful. We also will be subject to significant uncertainty as to when and in what manner and for what value the distressed debt or equity in which we invest will eventually be satisfied (e.g., in the case of distressed debt, through liquidation of the obligor's assets, an exchange offer or plan of reorganization involving the distressed debt securities or a payment of some amount in satisfaction of the obligation). In addition, even if an exchange offer is made or plan of reorganization is adopted with respect to distressed debt we hold, there can be no assurance that the securities or other assets received by us in connection with such exchange offer or plan of reorganization will not have a lower value or income potential than may have been anticipated when the investment was made. Moreover, any securities received by us upon completion of an exchange offer or plan of reorganization may be restricted as to resale. If we participate in negotiations with respect to any exchange offer or plan of reorganization with respect to an issuer of distressed debt, we may be restricted from disposing of such securities.

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 corporate CLO 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 stockholders. 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 corporate CLO 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 stockholders. 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. 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 stockholders.

The assets underlying our CLO investments 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. 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. The underlying collateral of the 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. To the extent that the 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. CLOs have at times experienced negative credit events in their constituent loans, credit rating downgrades of constituent loans and issued debt tranches, and failures of certain deal metrics. 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. 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. The pools of loans underlying Ellington-sponsored CLO securitizations ("Ellington-Sponsored CLOs") have historically had lower credit ratings than the loan portfolios in typical CLOs, as they allow for a higher percentage of below investment grade loans. Ellington-Sponsored CLOs have also experienced negative credit events in their constituent loans, credit rating downgrades of constituent loans and issued debt tranches, and failures of certain deal metrics. As a result, the risks associated with our investments in Ellington-Sponsored CLOs may be greater than those associated with our investments in other CLOs. In addition, we have in the past, and we may in the future, make equity investments in proposed Ellington-Sponsored CLO issuing entities. If the assets accumulated prior to the completion of a proposed CLO securitization experience negative credit events, decrease in value, are sold at a loss, or the proposed securitization does not occur, our equity and loan investments in such entity may experience a partial or complete loss.

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 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 stockholders.

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.

The CLOs in which we invest may acquire interests in corporate loans indirectly, by way of participations. In a participation, the underlying debt obligation remains with the institution that has sold the participation, which typically results in a contractual relationship only with such selling institution, and not with the corporate obligor directly. As a result, the holder of a participation assumes the credit risk of both the obligor and the selling institution, and may only have limited rights to influence any decisions made by the selling institution in connection with the underlying debt obligation.

We have held and may continue to hold the debt securities, loans or equity of companies that are more likely to experience bankruptcy or similar financial distress, such as companies that are thinly capitalized, employ a high degree of financial leverage, are in highly competitive or risky businesses, are in a start-up phase, or are experiencing losses. The bankruptcy process has a number of significant inherent risks. Many events in a bankruptcy proceeding are the product of contested matters and adversarial proceedings and are beyond the control of the creditors. A bankruptcy filing by a company whose debt or equity we have purchased may adversely and permanently affect such company. If the proceeding results in liquidation, the liquidation value of the company may have deteriorated significantly from what we believed to be the case at the time of our initial investment. The duration of a bankruptcy proceeding is also difficult to predict, and a return on investment to a creditor or equity investor can be adversely affected by delays until a plan of reorganization or liquidation ultimately becomes effective. The administrative costs in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding are frequently high and would be paid out of the debtor's estate prior to any return to creditors. Because the standards for classification of claims under bankruptcy law are vague, our influence with respect to the class of securities or other obligations we own may be lost by increases in the number and amount of claims in the same class or by different classification and treatment. In the early stages of the bankruptcy process, it is often difficult to estimate the extent of, or even to identify, any contingent claims that might be made. In addition, certain claims that have priority by law (e.g., for taxes) may be substantial, eroding the value of any recovery by holders of other securities of the bankrupt entity. A bankruptcy court may also re-characterize our debt investment as equity, and subordinate all or a portion of our claim to that of other creditors. This could occur even if our investment had initially been structured as senior debt, and we could lose all or a significant part of our investment. We have made and may in the future make loans secured by, or invest in structures tied to, individual, or portfolios of, legal claims, or "litigation finance loans." There is no assurance our Manager will be able to predict several aspects of the cases underlying our investments, including to which courts and judges the cases are assigned, the development of evidence during discovery and its presentation at trial, the composition and decisions of juries, timing of the judicial process, likelihood of settlements and collectability of judgments. In addition, we will not have the ability to control decisions made by the claimholder, defendant, or the law firm, nor can we share details of the underlying cases with our stockholders. We rely on, among other things, the advice and opinion of outside counsel and other experts in assessing potential claims and on the skills and efforts of independent law firms to litigate cases. There is no guarantee that the ultimate outcome of any case will be in line with outside counsel's or expert's initial assessment of the validity and merit of a legal claim. Various laws restrict the ability to assign certain legal claims or to participate in a lawyer's contingent fee interest in a claim. While we intend to analyze all relevant restrictions prior to investment, there is a risk that failure to comply with a federal, state or local law, rule or regulation could subject us to liability and jeopardize the enforceability of our investment.

Under the documentation for syndicated loans, a financial institution or other entity typically is designated as the administrative agent and/or collateral agent. This agent is granted a lien on any collateral on behalf of the other lenders and distributes payments on the indebtedness as they are received. The agent is the party responsible for administering and enforcing the loan and generally may take actions only in accordance with the instructions of a majority or two-thirds in commitments and/or principal amount of the associated indebtedness. In most cases for our syndicated loan investments, we do not expect to hold a sufficient amount of the indebtedness to be able to compel any actions by the agent. Consequently, we would only be able to direct such actions if instructions from us were made in conjunction with other holders of associated indebtedness that together with us compose the requisite percentage of the related indebtedness then entitled to take action. Conversely, if holders of the required amount of the associated indebtedness other than us desire to take certain actions, such actions may be taken even if we did not support such actions. Furthermore, if a syndicated loan is subordinated to one or more senior loans made to the applicable obligor, the ability of us to exercise such rights may be subordinated to the exercise of such rights by the senior lenders. Whenever we are unable to direct such actions, the parties taking such actions may not have interests that are aligned with us, and the actions taken may not be in our best interests. Furthermore, in recent years, "priming" transactions in the distressed debt sector have become more common. These "priming" arrangements are transactions where a group of debtholders can move collateral away from existing lenders so that it can serve as the primary source of secured assets for new money and/or restructuring existing debt. If we were to hold distressed debt that became "primed" by another group of lenders, we could lose all or a significant part of such investment. If an investment is a syndicated revolving loan or delayed drawdown loan, other lenders may fail to satisfy their full contractual funding commitments for such loan, which could create a breach of contract, result in a lawsuit by the obligor against the lenders and adversely affect the fair market value of our investment. There is a risk that a loan agent may become bankrupt or insolvent. Such an event would delay, and possibly impair, any enforcement actions undertaken by holders of the associated indebtedness, including attempts to realize upon the collateral securing the associated indebtedness and/or direct the agent to take actions against the related obligor or the collateral securing the associated indebtedness and actions to realize on proceeds of payments made by obligors that are in the possession or control of any other financial institution. In addition, we may be unable to remove the agent in circumstances in which removal would be in our best interests. Moreover, agented loans typically allow for the agent to resign with certain advance notice, and we may not find a replacement agent on a timely basis, or at all, in order to protect our investment.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making additional offerings of debt or equity securities, including commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes, convertible securities, and additional classes of preferred stock. If we decide to issue additional senior securities in the future, it is likely that they will be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Holders of senior securities may be granted specific rights, including the right to hold a perfected security interest in certain of our assets, the right to accelerate payments due under an indenture, rights to restrict dividend payments, and rights to require approval to sell assets. Additionally, any convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences, and privileges more favorable than those of our then-outstanding securities and could dilute our existing stockholders. We and, indirectly, our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and preferred stock, and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings, including offerings of our common or preferred stock or other securities convertible into our common stock, may dilute the holdings of our existing stockholders or reduce the market price of our existing equity securities, or both. We cannot predict the effect, if any, of future sales of our common or preferred stock or other securities convertible into our common stock, or the availability of such securities for future sales, on the market price of our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of our common or preferred stock or other securities convertible into our common stock, or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect the prevailing market price for our common stock. Our preferred stock has a preference on liquidating distributions and a preference on dividend payments that could limit our ability to make a dividend distribution to the holders of our common stock. 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 securities bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our securities and, in the case of holders of our equity securities, diluting their holdings.

We may invest in mezzanine loans or similar debt. The IRS has provided a safe harbor for mezzanine loans but not rules of substantive law. Pursuant to the safe harbor, if a mezzanine loan meets certain requirements, it will be treated by the IRS as a real estate asset for purposes of the REIT asset tests, and interest derived from the mezzanine loan will be treated as qualifying income for purposes of the REIT 75% gross income test. We may acquire mezzanine loans or similar debt that meet most but do not meet all of the requirements of this safe harbor, and we may treat such loans as real estate assets for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests. In the event that we own a mezzanine loan or similar debt that does not meet the safe harbor, the IRS could challenge such loan's treatment as a real estate asset for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests and, if such a challenge were sustained, we could fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT.

Generally, our investments in RTLs, and occasionally our investments in SBCs, are short term loans secured by a mortgage on real estate assets where the proceeds of the loan will be used, in part, to renovate the property. The interest from these investments will be qualifying income for purposes of the REIT income tests, provided that the loan value of the real property securing the investment is equal to or greater than the highest outstanding principal amount of the loan during any taxable year. Under the REIT provisions, where improvements will be constructed with the proceeds of the loan, the loan value of the real property is the fair value of the land and existing real property improvements plus the reasonably estimated cost of the improvements or developments (other than personal property) that will secure the loan and that are to be constructed from the proceeds of the loan. There can be no assurance that the IRS would not challenge our estimate of the loan value of the real property.

Most of the distressed mortgage loans that we have acquired were acquired by us at a discount from their outstanding principal amount, because our pricing was generally based on the value of the underlying real estate that secures those mortgage loans. Treasury Regulation Section 1.856-5(c) (the "interest apportionment regulation") provides that if a mortgage is secured by both real property and other property, a REIT is required to apportion its annual interest income to the real property security based on a fraction, the numerator of which is the value of the real property securing the loan, determined when the REIT commits to acquire the loan, and the denominator of which is the highest "principal amount" of the loan during the year. If a mortgage is secured by both real property and personal property and the value of the personal property does not exceed 15% of the aggregate value of the property securing the mortgage, the mortgage is treated as secured solely by real property for this purpose. Revenue Procedure 2014-51 interprets the "principal amount" of the loan to be the face amount of the loan, despite the Code requiring taxpayers to treat any market discount, that is the difference between the purchase price of the loan and its face amount, for all purposes (other than certain withholding and information reporting purposes) as interest rather than principal. The interest apportionment regulation applies only if the debt in question is secured both by real property and personal property. We believe that most of the mortgage loans that we acquire at a discount under the circumstances contemplated by Revenue Procedure 2014-51 are secured only by real property (including mortgage loans secured by both real property and personal property where the value of the personal property does not exceed 15% of the aggregate value of the property securing the mortgage). Accordingly, we believe that the interest apportionment regulation generally does not apply to our loans. Nevertheless, if the IRS were to assert successfully that such mortgage loans were secured by property other than real estate, that the interest apportionment regulation applied for purposes of our REIT testing, and that the position taken in Revenue Procedure 2014-51 should be applied to our portfolio, then depending upon the value of the real property securing our loans and their face amount, and the sources of our gross income generally, we might not be able to meet the REIT 75% gross income test, and possibly the REIT asset tests. If we did not meet these tests, we could potentially either lose our REIT status or be required to pay a tax penalty to the IRS. With respect to the REIT 75% asset test, Revenue Procedure 2014-51 provides a safe harbor under which the IRS will not challenge a REIT's treatment of a loan as being a real estate asset in an amount equal to the lesser of (1) the greater of (a) the current value of the real property securing the loan or (b) the fair market value of the real property securing the loan determined as of the date the REIT committed to acquire the loan or (2) the fair market value of the loan on the date of the relevant quarterly REIT asset testing date. This safe harbor, if it applied to us, would help us comply with the REIT asset tests following the acquisition of distressed debt if the value of the real property securing the loan were to subsequently decline. If we did not meet one or more of the REIT asset tests, then we could potentially either lose our REIT status or be required to pay a tax penalty to the IRS.

Our business is materially affected by conditions in the residential and commercial mortgage markets, the residential and commercial real estate markets, 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 and commercial mortgage markets in the U.S. and Europe have 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 and commercial mortgage markets 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 residential and commercial mortgage loans, MBS, other real estate-related securities and various other asset classes in which we may invest. As a result, values for residential and commercial mortgage loans, MBS, 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 residential and commercial mortgage loans, MBS, 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 stockholders.

We have invested and may in the future 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.

In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we generally will have to distribute to our stockholders 90% of our REIT taxable income. As with other mortgage REITs, the vast majority of our income is expected to constitute REIT taxable income, and therefore we expect to have to distribute, and not retain, the vast majority of our income. As a result, any material growth in our equity capital base must largely be funded by external sources of capital. Our access to external capital will depend upon a number of factors, including the market price of our common and preferred stock, the market's perception of our financial condition and potential future earnings, and general market conditions.

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 stockholders 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 shares of common stock and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders, and you may lose part or all of your investment.

Sellers of mortgage loans that we acquire or that are sold to the trusts that issued the non-Agency RMBS or European RMBS in which we invest made various representations and warranties related to the mortgage loans sold by them to us or 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 we, or 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 us or from a non-Agency RMBS trust or European RMBS trust in which we invest would likely cause higher rates of delinquencies, defaults, and losses for the mortgage loans we hold, or the mortgage loans backing such non-Agency RMBS or European RMBS, and ultimately greater losses for our investment in such assets.

Longbridge originates and services HECM loans where the borrower an undrawn line of credit entitling the borrower to demand future draws, which Longbridge as servicer is obligated to fund. As of December 31, 2023 our commitment to fund such additional borrowing capacity was $1.9 billion. In addition, we are required to advance mortgage insurance premiums on behalf of HECM borrowers. We typically fund these obligations on a short-term basis using available cash and/or our credit facilities, and regularly securitize these amounts (along with our servicing fees) through the issuance of HMBS tail securitizations. A substantial portion of reverse MSR values comes from the expectation that while the servicer funds such future draws at par, it will be able to securitize and sell such future draws at a premium. When valuing Longbridge's reverse MSRs, the prices assumed for subsequent HMBS tail pools reflect market conditions that may not be realized. If the actual prices earned on these HMBS pools are lower than forecast, the value of Longbridge's reverse MSRs could be materially adversely impacted. We have also entered into an agreement for a revolving credit facility to finance a portfolio of these tail draws prior to their securitization into HMBS. However, to the extent that our funding commitments exceed our borrowing capacity under this facility, or if we are unable to renew this facility upon its maturity in May 2024, we would be dependent on available cash to meet these commitments. If Longbridge's liquidity position is insufficient to fund these amounts and Longbridge is unable to fund them through the securitization of the tails into HMBS, this could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Our fixed-rate investments, especially most fixed-rate mortgage loans, fixed-rate MBS, and most MBS backed by fixed-rate mortgage loans, generally decline in value when long-term interest rates increase. Even in the case of Agency RMBS, the guarantees provided by GSEs do not protect us from declines in market value caused by changes in interest rates. In the case of RMBS backed by adjustable-rate mortgages, or "ARMs," increases in interest rates can lead to increases in delinquencies and defaults as borrowers become less able to make their mortgage payments following interest payment resets. Additionally, an increase in short-term interest rates would increase the amount of interest owed on our repo borrowings. 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."

We have invested, and may in the future invest, in second-lien mortgage loans or RMBS backed by such loans. We also have invested, and may in the future invest, in subordinated corporate loans or CLOs backed by such loans. If a borrower defaults on a second-lien or subordinated 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 second-lien or subordinated loan will be satisfied only after all senior debt is paid in full. As a result, if we invest directly or indirectly in second-lien mortgage loans or subordinated corporate loans and the underlying borrower defaults, we may lose all or a significant part of our investment.

A portion of our investments currently are, and in the future may be, in the form of commercial and residential whole mortgage loans, including subprime mortgage loans and non-performing and sub-performing mortgage loans, which are subject to increased risks of loss. Such loans may already be, or may become, non-performing or sub-performing for a variety of reasons, including because the underlying property is too highly leveraged, property cash flows are inadequate to support a full refinancing upon loan maturity, or the borrower falls upon financial distress. Such non-performing or sub-performing loans may require a substantial amount of workout negotiations and/or restructuring, which may divert the attention of our Manager from other activities and entail, among other things, a substantial reduction in the interest rate, capitalization of interest payments, and a substantial write-down of the principal of the loan. However, even if such restructuring were successfully accomplished, a risk exists that the borrower will not be able or willing to maintain the restructured payments or refinance the restructured mortgage upon maturity. In addition, such modifications could affect our compliance with the tests applicable to REITs, including by increasing our distribution requirement. In addition, certain non-performing or sub-performing loans that we acquire may have been originated by financial institutions that are or may become insolvent, suffer from serious financial stress, or are no longer in existence. As a result, the standards by which such loans were originated, the recourse to the selling institution, and/or the standards by which such loans are being serviced or operated may be adversely affected. Further, loans on properties operating under the close supervision of a mortgage lender are, in certain circumstances, subject to certain additional potential liabilities that may exceed the value of our investment. In the future, it is possible that we may find it necessary or desirable to foreclose on some, if not many, of the loans we acquire, and the foreclosure process may be lengthy and expensive. Borrowers or junior lenders may resist mortgage foreclosure actions by asserting numerous claims, counterclaims, and defenses against us including, without limitation, numerous lender liability claims and defenses, even when such assertions may have no basis in fact, in an effort to prolong the foreclosure action and force the lender into a modification of the loan or capital structure or a favorable buy-out of the borrower's or junior lender's position. In some states, foreclosure actions can sometimes take several years or more to litigate. At any time prior to or during the foreclosure proceedings, the borrower may file, or a junior lender may cause the borrower to file, for bankruptcy, which would have the effect of staying the foreclosure actions and further delaying the foreclosure process. Foreclosure and associated litigation may create a negative public perception of the related mortgaged property, resulting in a diminution of its value. Even if we are successful in foreclosing on a loan, the liquidation proceeds upon sale of the underlying real estate may not be sufficient to recover our cost basis in the loan, resulting in a loss to us, and the borrower or junior lenders may continue to challenge whether the foreclosure process was commercially reasonable, which could result in additional costs and potential liability. Any costs or delays involved in the effectuation of a foreclosure of the loan or a liquidation of the underlying property, or defending challenges brought after the completion of a foreclosure, will further reduce the liquidation proceeds and thus increase the loss. Any such reductions could materially and adversely affect the value we realize from the loans in which we invest. Whether or not our Manager has participated in the negotiation of the terms of any such mortgage loans, there can be no assurance as to the adequacy of the protection of the terms of the loan, including the validity or enforceability of the loan and the maintenance of the anticipated priority and perfection of the applicable security interests. Furthermore, claims may be asserted that might interfere with enforcement of our rights. 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, resulting in a loss to us. Commercial whole mortgage loans are also subject to special hazard risk and to bankruptcy risk. In addition, claims may be assessed against us on account of our position as mortgage holder or property owner, including assignee liability, responsibility for tax payments, environmental hazards and other liabilities. 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.

With respect to the CMBS in which we invest, overall control over the special servicing of the related underlying mortgage loans will be held by a "directing certificateholder" or a "controlling class representative," which is generally appointed by the holders of the most subordinate class of CMBS in such series. In connection with the servicing of the specially serviced mortgage loans, the related special servicer may, at the direction of the directing certificateholder, take actions with respect to the specially serviced mortgage loans that could adversely affect our interests. For further discussion of the risks of our reliance on special servicers, see "-We rely on mortgage servicers to service effectively, including our loss mitigation efforts, and we also may engage in our own loss mitigation efforts with respect to whole mortgage loans that we own directly and such loss mitigation efforts may be unsuccessful or not cost effective."

Our investments in CMBS are at risk of loss. In general, losses on real estate securing a mortgage loan included in a securitization will be borne first by the owner of the property, then by the holder of a mezzanine loan or a subordinated participation interest in a bifurcated first-lien loan, or "B-Note," if any, then by the "first-loss" subordinated security holder (generally, the B-piece buyer) and then by the holder of a higher-rated security. In the event of losses on mortgage loans included in a securitization and the subsequent exhaustion of any applicable reserve fund, letter of credit, or classes of securities junior to those in which we invest, we may not be able to recover all of our investment in the securities we purchase. In addition, if any of the real estate underlying the securitization mortgage portfolio has been overvalued by the originator, or if real estate values subsequently decline and, as a result, less collateral is available to satisfy interest and principal payments due on the related CMBS, we may incur losses. The prices of lower credit quality securities are generally less sensitive to interest rate changes than more highly rated investments, but more sensitive to adverse economic downturns or individual issuer developments.

Commercial mortgage loans are secured by commercial property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risk of loss that may be greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential property. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of such property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower's ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Furthermore, the market value of a commercial mortgage property is often driven by a "capitalization rate," which represents the annual net operating income of the property expressed as a percentage of its market value. Capitalization rates tend to be correlated with long-term interest rates, and have trended higher recently in sympathy with rising long-term interest rates, which has degraded the market value of many commercial properties. Upon maturity of our commercial mortgage loans, declines in the net operating income of the property and/or increases in then-prevailing capitalization rates (especially if interest rates have risen substantially from the time the loan was originated), may cause declines in the market value of the property, which could cause the borrower to be unable to refinance or repay the maturing loan. Net operating income of an income-producing property can be adversely affected by, among other things: - tenant mix;- declines in tenant income and/or changes to tenant businesses;- property management decisions;- property location, condition, and design;- new construction of competitive properties;- changes in laws that increase operating expenses or limit rents that may be charged;- changes in national, regional, or local economic conditions and/or specific industry segments, including the credit and securitization markets;- declines in regional or local real estate values;- declines in regional or local rental or occupancy rates;- increases in interest rates, real estate tax rates, and other operating expenses;- costs of remediation and liabilities associated with environmental conditions;- the potential for uninsured or underinsured property losses;- changes in governmental laws and regulations, including fiscal policies, zoning ordinances and environmental legislation, and the related costs of compliance; and - general economic downturn, high energy costs, high unemployment, acts of God, pandemics such as the COVID-19 pandemic, war or other geopolitical conflict, terrorism, elevated inflation, social unrest, and civil disturbances. In the event of any default under a mortgage loan held directly by us, we will bear a risk of loss to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and our cost basis in the outstanding principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan, and any such losses could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. 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 addition, there were several notable regional bank failures in the U.S. during 2023, many of which held a significant amount of commercial mortgage loans. There is a possibility that any resulting instability of the banking system could reduce the rate of global economic growth and might lead to a recessionary environment in certain economies, including the U.S. or Europe. Any decline in the commercial real estate market related to the failed regional banks could have a materially adverse impact on our commercial mortgage loans and REO and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. CMBS are secured by a single commercial mortgage loan or a pool of commercial mortgage loans. Accordingly, the CMBS we invest in are subject to all of the risks of the respective underlying commercial mortgage loans. We also have commercial mortgage loans and CMBS where the value of the underlying properties, such as office properties, hotels, and healthcare properties, partly relies on the value associated with the operating businesses at those properties. As such, these loans bear the risks associated with the values of those commercial properties, as well as the risks associated with the underlying operating businesses, which could be thinly capitalized, highly leveraged, dependent on a small number of key individuals, subject to regulatory concerns, underperform expectations, or face other obstacles that could adversely affect the business and results of operations of any such entity. Office properties are subject to potential valuation declines related disruptions or changes in business practices caused by technological or other innovations (such as businesses adopting remote work policies, shared spaces, and/or co-working environments), workforce reductions in certain market segments, or other factors, which has recently negatively impacted, and may continue to negatively impact, office demand in the commercial real estate sector, rental rates and occupancy levels. Distress in the commercial real estate sector, including office properties, such as that experienced during 2023, has negatively impacted and may continue to negatively impact certain commercial real estate-related markets in which we invest, including for example, as a result of low occupancy rates, tenant defaults, the maturation of a significant amount of commercial real estate loans amid an elevated interest rate environment, tightening credit conditions imposed by traditional sources of real estate financing and refinancing, and commercial mortgage loan defaults. If these commercial properties do not generate sufficient income to pay for ongoing operating expenses, our commercial mortgage loans and/or our CMBS may not generate enough principal and/or interest to justify their investment. A decline in the performance or value of commercial mortgage loans could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

If we subsequently resell any whole mortgage loans that we acquire, 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 stockholders.

We acquire and manage residential mortgage loans. Residential mortgage loans, including non-QM loans, residential transition loans, residential NPLs and RPLs, and proprietary reverse 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 whole 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.

ARMs and hybrid ARMs (i.e., residential mortgage loans that have interest rates that are fixed for a specified period of time (typically three, five, seven or ten years) and, thereafter, adjust to a fixed increment over a specified interest rate index) 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."

Some of our assets are fixed rate or have a fixed-rate component (such as non-QM loans, residential transition loans, and 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 ARMs, 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 assets 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 stockholders 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, such as we saw during 2022 and 2023, 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 our intention to remain qualified as a REIT, 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 stockholders.

We are exposed to the performance of consumer loans through those consumer loans that we own directly, through those consumer loans to which we are exposed indirectly through our ownership of consumer-loan-backed ABS, and through our ownership interests in consumer loan originators. The ability of borrowers to repay consumer loans may be adversely affected by numerous borrower-specific factors, including unemployment, divorce, major medical expenses or personal bankruptcy. General factors, including a general economic downturn, high energy costs, high unemployment, acts of God, pandemics such as the COVID-19 pandemic, war or other geopolitical conflict, terrorism, elevated inflation, social unrest, and civil disturbances may also affect the financial stability of borrowers and impair their ability or willingness to repay their loans. Whenever any of our consumer loans defaults, we are at risk of loss to the extent of any deficiency between the liquidation value of the collateral, if any, securing the loan, and the principal and accrued interest of the loan. Many of our consumer loans are unsecured, or are secured by collateral (such as an automobile) that depreciates rapidly; as a result, these loans may be at greater risk of loss than residential mortgage loans. Pursuing any remaining deficiency following a default is often difficult or impractical, especially when the borrower has a low credit score, making further substantial collection efforts unwarranted. In addition, repossessing personal property securing a consumer loan can present additional challenges, including locating and taking physical possession of the collateral. We rely on servicers who service these consumer loans, to, among other things, collect principal and interest payments on the loans and perform loss mitigation services, and these servicers may not perform adequately or in a manner that promotes our interests. Since we purchase some of our consumer loans and our consumer-loan-backed ABS at a premium to the remaining unpaid principal balance, we may incur a loss when such loans are voluntarily prepaid. There can be no guarantee that we will not suffer unexpected losses on our investments as a result of the factors set out above, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

We acquire assets and other instruments that are not publicly traded, including privately placed RMBS, residential and commercial mortgage loans, CLOs, consumer loans, ABS backed by consumer and commercial assets, distressed corporate debt and equity, MSR-related assets, and other private investments, such as investments in loan originators. As such, these assets may be subject to legal and other restrictions on resale, transfer, pledge or other disposition, or will otherwise be less liquid than publicly traded securities. Other assets that we acquire, while publicly traded, have limited liquidity on account of their complexity, turbulent market conditions, or other factors. In addition, mortgage-related assets from time to time have experienced extended periods of illiquidity, including during times of financial stress (such as during the COVID-19 pandemic),which is often the time that liquidity is most needed. Illiquid assets typically experience greater price volatility, because a ready market does not exist, and they can be more difficult to value or sell if the need arises. In addition, if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we have previously recorded our assets. We may also face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate any assets for which we or our Manager has or could be attributed with material non-public information. Furthermore, assets that are illiquid are more difficult to finance, and to the extent that we finance assets that are or become illiquid, we may lose that financing or have it reduced. If we are unable to sell our assets at favorable prices or at all, it could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

In the event of our insolvency or bankruptcy, certain repos 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, 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 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.

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 stockholders. 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 stockholders.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and maintaining our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we opportunistically pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to losses from adverse credit events, interest rate changes, foreign currency fluctuations, and other risks. Hedging against a decline in the values of our portfolio positions does not prevent losses if the values of such positions decline, nor does it eliminate the possibility of fluctuations in the value of our portfolio. Hedging transactions generally will limit the opportunity for gain should the values of our other portfolio positions increase. Further, certain hedging transactions could result in significant losses. Qualification as a REIT may require that we undertake certain hedging activities in a TRS. Our domestic TRSs are subject to U.S. federal, state, and local income tax. Moreover, at any point in time we may choose not to hedge all or a portion of our risks, and we generally will not hedge those risks that we believe are appropriate for us to take at such time, or that we believe would be impractical or prohibitively expensive to hedge. Even if we do choose to hedge certain risks, for a variety of reasons we generally will not seek to establish a perfect correlation between our hedging instruments and the risks being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the composition of our portfolio, our market views, and changing market conditions, including the level and volatility of interest rates. When we do choose to hedge, hedging may fail to protect or could materially adversely affect us because, among other things: - our Manager may fail to correctly assess the degree of correlation between the hedging instruments and the assets being hedged;- our Manager may fail to recalculate, re-adjust, and execute hedges in an efficient and timely manner;- the hedging transactions may actually result in poorer overall performance for us than if we had not engaged in the hedging transactions;- credit hedging can be expensive, particularly when the market is forecasting future credit deterioration and when markets are more illiquid;- interest rate hedging can be expensive, particularly during periods of volatile interest rates;- available hedges may not correspond directly with the risks for which protection is sought;- the durations of the hedges may not match the durations 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 payment 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; and - our hedging instruments are generally structured as derivative contracts and, as a result, are subject to additional risks such as those described under "-Our access to financing sources may not be available on favorable terms, may be limited or completely shut off, and our lenders and derivative counterparties could require us to post additional collateral. These circumstances could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders" and "-Our use of derivatives may expose us to counterparty risk." 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 stockholders, and our ability to maintain our qualification as a REIT.

We are subject to various restrictive covenants contained in our existing financing arrangements and may become subject to additional covenants in connection with future financings. For example, the indenture governing our Senior Notes contains covenants that, subject to a number of exceptions and adjustments, among other things: limit our ability to incur additional indebtedness; require us to maintain a minimum Net Asset Value (as defined in the indenture governing the Senior Notes); require us to maintain a ratio of Consolidated Unencumbered Assets (as defined in indenture governing the Senior Notes) to the aggregate principal amount of the outstanding Senior Notes at or above a specified threshold, and impose certain conditions on our merger or consolidation with another person. In addition, the interest rate on our Senior Notes is subject to upward adjustment based on certain changes, if any, in the ratings of the Senior Notes. Furthermore, several of our repo agreements contain financial covenants of a similar nature, including requiring us to maintain a minimum level of liquidity, a minimum level of equity, and a maximum level of additional indebtedness. The covenants in our financing arrangements may limit our flexibility to pursue certain investments or incur additional debt. If we fail to meet or satisfy any of these covenants, subject to any applicable cure provisions, we would be in default under these agreements and our indebtedness could be declared due and payable. In addition, our lenders could terminate their commitments, require the posting of additional collateral and enforce their interests against existing collateral. We may also be subject to cross-default and acceleration rights under our financing arrangements, whereby a default (such as a failure to comply with a covenant) under one financing arrangement can trigger a default under other financing arrangements.

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 borrowings 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 repos) 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 borrowings, or arrange for new financing on terms acceptable to us, or if we default on our financial covenants (including those on our repurchase agreements, other borrowings, and our Senior Notes), 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 stockholders. 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, our lenders may significantly increase the cost of the financing that they provide to us, or increase the amounts of collateral they require as a condition to 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 stockholders, and could cause the value of our capital stock 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 or transfer additional securities 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 stockholders, 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 dividends to our stockholders, 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 stockholders, or in the worst case, cause our insolvency.

We have entered into repurchase agreements under which we nominally sell certain of our MBS 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 MBS 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 MBS during the term of the repurchase agreement, in which case we could fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT.

We believe that the excess servicing spread assets that we currently hold represent interests in mortgages on real property and thus are qualifying "real estate assets" for purposes of the REIT asset test, which generate income that qualifies as interest on obligations secured by mortgages on real property for purposes of the REIT income test. If our belief is incorrect, or if we acquire an excess servicing spread asset with terms that are different from the terms of our current excess servicing spread assets, the IRS could assert that such excess servicing spread assets do not qualify under the REIT asset and income tests, and if successful, we might fail to qualify as a REIT, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our common stock is our dividend rate (or expected future dividend rates) as a percentage of our common stock price, relative to prevailing market interest rates. Similarly, investors in our preferred equity securities or our debt securities may consider the dividend rate or yield on such securities relative to prevailing market interest rates. If market interest rates continue to increase, prospective investors in our equity or debt securities may demand a higher dividend rate or yield on our securities or seek alternative investments paying higher dividends or interest. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions can affect the market price of our securities 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 stock could decrease because potential investors may require a higher dividend yield on our common stock 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 financings, rising interest rates would result in increased interest expense on this variable rate debt, thereby potentially adversely affecting our cash flow and our ability to service our indebtedness and pay dividends to our stockholders.

Longbridge has contracted with subservicer(s) (each, a "Subservicer") to perform reverse mortgage servicing functions on its behalf. This subservicing relationship presents a number of risks to us. Longbridge currently relies on the Subservicer to subservice all of its reverse mortgage portfolio. Failure by the Subservicer to meet the requirements of the various servicing guidelines or contractual obligations could expose us to the assessment of fines and loss of reimbursement of loan related advances, expenses, interest and servicing fees. Moreover, if the Subservicer is not vigilant in encouraging borrowers to make their real estate tax and property insurance premium payments, the borrowers may be less likely to make these payments, which could result in a higher frequency of borrower default for failure to make these payments. If the Subservicer misses HUD and Ginnie Mae timelines for liquidating non-performing assets and Longbridge's oversight does not prevent such missed timeline, loss severities may be higher than originally anticipated, and Longbridge may be subject to penalties by HUD and Ginnie Mae, including curtailment of interest. If Longbridge fails to recover fines or any amounts lost from the Subservicer, it would eventually realize a loss of such amounts. Since all of Longbridge's portfolio is subserviced by one entity, as opposed to multiple subservicers, there is a greater risk to Longbridge if the Subservicer fails to perform its duties properly, than if Longbridge were to use multiple subservicers. In the reverse mortgage business, the number of third-party subservicers is highly limited. Unless more subservicers enter this space, the quality of subservicing practices may deteriorate, and Longbridge could have limited options in the event of a subservicer's failure. The failure of a subservicer to effectively service the HECM and proprietary mortgage loans Longbridge owns or the loans underlying the HMBS Longbridge issues and holds in its portfolio or sells to third parties could have a material and adverse effect on our business and our financial condition. In addition, regulators or third parties may take the position that we were responsible for the subservicers' actions or failures to act; in that event, we might be exposed to the same risks as the subservicers. If any of Longbridge's subservicers or any of their respective vendors fails to perform their duties pursuant to the related agreement(s), whether due to legal and regulatory issues or financial difficulties as described in the two preceding paragraphs or for any other reason, Longbridge would need to appoint another subservicer to perform such duties, to the extent required pursuant to the related agreement. The process of identifying and engaging a suitable successor subservicer and transitioning the functions performed by such subservicer to such successor subservicer could result in delays in collections and other functions performed by the subservicer and expose Longbridge's business to breach of contract and indemnity claims relating to its servicing or subservicing obligations. Such delays may also adversely affect the value of the residual interests that we own in our securitizations and loans.

Our interests in MSRs, including our Forward MSR-related investments, may involve complex or novel structures. Accordingly, the risks associated with the transactions and structures are not fully known. In the case of interests in MSRs that reference mortgages guaranteed by GSEs, the GSEs may require that we submit to costly or burdensome conditions as a prerequisite to their consent to an investment in, or our financing of, those MSRs. These conditions, which could include large capital requirements, may greatly reduce the potential returns available from these investments. It is possible that a GSE's views on whether any such acquisition structure is appropriate or acceptable may not be known to us when we make an investment and may change from time to time for any reason, even with respect to a completed investment. A GSE could even impose new conditions on our existing Forward MSR-related investments, including our ability to hold such MSRs at all. Such new conditions may be costly or burdensome and could require us to dispose of the Forward MSR-related investments at an inopportune time. Moreover, complying with such new conditions could require us or our co-investment counterparties to agree to material structural or economic changes, as well as agree to indemnification or other terms that expose us to risks to which we have not previously been exposed, all of which could negatively affect the returns from our investments. In addition, the novelty and/or complexity of such structures may limit our ability to transfer such interests, including as a result of required GSE consents and/or the unsecured nature of our interest, and the market for investors willing to invest in an asset with such a novel and complex structure may be limited or may not exist at all, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Pursuant to our Base MSR Contracts, to the extent that costs of servicing exceed servicing proceeds, we are obligated to pay the equivalent of such excess to cover such "servicing advances," which can include the payment of unpaid principal and interest due to the third-party owners of the loans, property taxes and insurance premiums, legal expenses and other protective advances that have not yet been received from the individual borrowers. Subject to the terms of the relevant servicing agreements, the Forward MSR Master Servicer is generally entitled to reimbursement for servicing advances that are not subsequently collected from the underlying borrowers, and under the Base MSR Contract we would in turn be reimbursed by the Base MSR Contract Counterparty for any servicing advances that we had funded. Our right to such reimbursement is unsecured. During periods of economic disruption, there is a greater possibility that mortgage loan borrowers could fail to pay principal and interest payments, request forbearance of their monthly mortgage payments altogether, or otherwise miss scheduled payments including property taxes and insurance premium escrows, which could greatly increase the amount of servicing advances we would be required to indirectly fund, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

For some of our Forward MSR-related investments, we may allow the Forward MSR Master Servicer to apply leverage to the underlying MSRs by pledging them under an MSR financing facility, in which case the lender would have a secured interest in the pledged underlying MSRs. Under a typical MSR financing facility, if the fair value of the pledged underlying MSRs declines and the lender demands additional collateral from the Forward MSR Master Servicer through a margin call, we would be required to provide the Forward MSR Master Servicer with additional funds or other assets to meet such margin call; if we were unable to satisfy such margin call, the lender could declare an event of default. MSR financing facilities typically require the Forward MSR Master Servicer to satisfy various covenants, conditions and tests, the failure of which could lead to an amortization event and/or an event of default, and the satisfaction of which is out of our control. An event of default under an MSR financing facility could result in the liquidation by the lender of the pledged underlying MSRs to satisfy the loan obligation, which could result in a material loss on our Forward MSR-related investment and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. Further, our MSR financing facilities may also include other customers of the related Forward MSR Master Servicer as borrowers, whose MSR-related investments (that may or may not be similar to our Forward MSR-related investments) are commingled with our own investments in securing the MSR financing facility. As such, in a scenario where those other MSR-related investments decline in value and trigger margin calls under the MSR financing facility, if the applicable borrower does not provide funds or additional assets to meet such margin calls, we could be required to meet the margin calls in order to preserve the value of our own investments, and avoid an amortization event and/or an event of default under the MSR financing facility. In addition, a sufficiently large decline in value of the unaffiliated MSR-related investments could lead to an impairments of our own Forward MSR-related investments given the commingled nature of the MSR Financing Facility. In the case of MSRs involving loans that are guaranteed by a GSE, any excess servicing spread that we hold related to such MSRs, and any MSR financing facilities used to finance such MSRs, are subject to acknowledgement agreements with a GSE, pursuant to which our and our lender's rights are subordinate in all respects to the rights of such GSE. Any extinguishment of our and/or our lender's rights in the underlying MSRs could result in significant losses to us. In addition, the borrowing capacity under any MSR financing is limited, and if the Forward MSR Master Servicer is not successful in upsizing an MSR financing facility or finding a larger replacement facility, we may not be able to achieve our projected leveraged economic returns on our Forward MSR-related investments. In addition, any new MSR financing facility entered into by a Forward MSR Master Servicer would be subject to approval by the relevant GSE. If the Forward MSR Master Servicer cannot obtain such GSE approval, it may not be able to obtain financing for us on favorable terms or at all.

We have investments in MSR-related assets that expose us to risk of loss. We do not hold the requisite licenses to purchase or hold the underlying MSRs of forward-MSR related investments directly, but instead we have entered and, in the future, may enter into agreements with licensed residential mortgage loan servicers (each, a "Forward MSR Master Servicer") that enable us to participate indirectly in the economic returns of the underlying MSRs. Generally, a Forward MSR-related investment with a Forward MSR Master Servicer provides that we: (i) purchase the "excess servicing spread" from such Forward MSR Master Servicer, entitling us to monthly distributions of the servicing fees collected by the Forward MSR Master Servicer in respect of the underlying MSRs in excess of a base rate (often approximately 12.5 basis points per annum) and (ii) enter into a contract (a "Base MSR Contract") with the Forward MSR Master Servicer or an affiliate thereof (the "Base MSR Contract Counterparty") that references the performance of the underlying MSRs. The amount that we pay to enter into a Base MSR Contract entitles us to receive an amount generally equivalent to the excess of servicing proceeds (which may include servicing fee revenue, income generated on escrow balances, reimbursements for previously made servicing advances, and proceeds from the sale of the underlying MSRs) over the sum of the excess servicing spread and the actual costs of servicing (including amounts paid for servicing advances, master and subservicing fees, and other costs and expenses). Forward MSR-related investments also generally entitle us to distributions of corresponding proceeds upon a sale of the underlying MSRs. We rely on the Forward MSR Master Servicer to maintain the state licenses required to hold and manage the underlying MSRs, and, when the underlying MSRs related to mortgage loans are guaranteed by a GSE, to maintain the required GSE approvals. If the Forward MSR Master Servicer were to default under its servicing or other obligations to a GSE, such GSE could transfer the related servicing rights to another servicer, in which case we could realize a significant loss on our Forward MSR-related investment, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. While our Forward MSR-related investments involving GSE-guaranteed loans are often subject to an "acknowledgement agreement" with the GSE, which gives us some rights in the event of a Forward MSR Master Servicer default, such rights are not absolute and the underlying MSRs remain subject and subordinate in all respects to the interests of the GSE. In addition to being subject to regulations by the GSEs, mortgage servicers are also subject to extensive federal, state and local laws, regulations and administrative decisions. As mortgage servicers, Forward MSR Master Servicers' failures to comply with these laws, regulations and administrative decisions can expose Forward MSR Master Servicers to fines, damages and losses. Forward MSR Master Servicers operate in a highly litigious industry that also subject them to potential lawsuits related to billing and collections practices, modification protocols or foreclosure practices. Furthermore, Forward MSR Master Servicers can often be held responsible for the actions of any subservicers they employ. Finally, if a Forward MSR Master Servicer becomes insolvent, we may become a general unsecured creditor of such Forward MSR Master Servicer with respect to the related Forward MSR-related investments, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

We, and our loan originator affiliates, require significant borrowing capacity in order to fund mortgage originations and finance our investments in the mortgage loans originated by our loan originator affiliates and by third parties. Accordingly, our ability, and that of our loan originator affiliates, to fund mortgage originations, to continue to make investments in loans, and to fund existing loan commitments, depends on the ability to secure financing on acceptable terms and to renew and/or replace existing financings as they expire. These financings may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. If we, or our loan originator affiliates, are unable to obtain these financings, our business and results of operations would be adversely affected. Effective as of the closing of the Longbridge Transaction, we consolidated the indebtedness of Longbridge on our balance sheet. Longbridge is subject to financial covenants pursuant to the terms of its indebtedness, including minimum net worth and liquidity. As of December 31, 2023, Longbridge was in compliance with all of its financial covenants. If Longbridge were to fail to meet or satisfy any of these financial covenants, it could be in default under its agreements, and its lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under the respective financing agreements to be immediately due and payable, enforce their respective security interests under such agreements and restrict Longbridge's ability to incur additional borrowings. In addition, Longbridge's financing agreements may contain other events of default and cross-default provisions, so that if an event of default occurs under one agreement, the lenders under certain other agreements could also declare an event of default. See "-Risks Related to Our Business-Our access to financing sources, which may not be available on favorable terms, may be limited or completely shut off, and our lenders and derivative counterparties could require us to post additional collateral. These circumstances could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders."

We are required to consolidate Longbridge in our financial statements starting with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022. Prior to the closing of the Longbridge Transaction, we had not previously acquired a controlling interest in an operating company nor had we been previously engaged in directly originating reverse mortgage loans or owning reverse MSRs. If we experience challenges related to the acquisition of a controlling interest in Longbridge that we did not anticipate or cannot mitigate, we could experience significant disruptions in our business, which may include significant losses with respect to this investment.

We use leverage to finance our investment activities and to enhance our financial returns. Most of our leverage is in the form of short-term repos for our Agency and credit portfolio assets. Other forms of leverage include our term secured bank facilities, our securitizations, our unsecured borrowings and may in the future include credit facilities, including term loans and revolving credit facilities. Through the use of leverage, we may acquire positions with market exposure significantly greater than the amount of capital committed to the transaction. For example, by entering into repos with haircut levels of 5%, we could theoretically leverage capital allocated to Agency RMBS by an asset-to-equity ratio of as much as 20 to 1. A haircut is the percentage discount that a repo lender applies to the market value of an asset serving as collateral for a repo borrowing, for the purpose of determining whether such repo borrowing is adequately collateralized. Although we may from time to time enter into certain contracts with third parties that may limit our leverage, such as certain financing arrangements with lenders, our governing documents do not specifically limit the amount of leverage that we may use. Leverage can enhance our potential returns but can also exacerbate losses. Even if an asset increases in value, if the asset fails to earn a return that equals or exceeds our cost of borrowing, the leverage will diminish our returns. Leverage also increases the risk of our being forced to precipitously liquidate our assets. See "-Our access to financing may not be available on favorable terms, may be limited or completely shut off, and our lenders and derivative counterparties may require us to post additional collateral. These circumstances could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders."

We have in the past and may in the future, seek to grow our business by acquiring other businesses or merging with other companies that we believe will complement or augment our existing businesses. We cannot predict with certainty the benefits of such acquisitions or mergers, which often constitute multi-year endeavors, and we often make a number of assumptions about a company's assets, investment portfolio and/or liabilities when assessing such acquisitions or mergers. To the extent that we overestimate the value of, and/or projected net income to be generated by certain assets or investment portfolios, and/or underestimated liabilities related to a company or its assets or investment portfolio or we are otherwise incorrect in our assumptions, we may be unable to realize the anticipated benefits of an acquisition or merger. Further, we may incur significant additional costs in connection with the completion of an acquisition or merger, or in connection with any delay in completing an acquisition or merger or termination of the applicable acquisition or merger agreement, and the investment of such upfront costs may not be profitable. There is risk that our acquisitions and/or mergers, including the Arlington Merger, may not have the anticipated positive results, including results relating to: correctly assessing the quality of the assets or investment portfolio being acquired, the cost, time and complexities required to complete the integration successfully, being able to successfully redeploy any capital acquired in connection with an acquisition or a merger, potential unknown liabilities associated with an acquisition or a merger, including but not limited to those related to taxation issues, pending or threatened litigation or regulatory matters, performance shortfalls as a result of the diversion of management's attention caused by completing an acquisition or a merger, any expectation of benefit from certain operating synergies and/or efficiencies, including those related to the elimination of duplicative costs and the spreading of fixed costs across a larger asset base, or the overall performance of the combined entity. If we are unable to successfully integrate our acquisitions and/or mergers into our business, we may never realize their expected benefits. With each acquisition or merger, including the Arlington Merger, we may discover unexpected costs, liabilities for which we are not indemnified, delays, lower than expected cost savings or synergies, or incurrence of other significant charges, such as impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets and asset or portfolio devaluation. We also may be unable to successfully integrate the diverse company cultures, retain key personnel, apply our expertise to new competencies, or react to adverse changes in industry conditions. It is possible that the integration process related to acquisitions or mergers could result in the disruption of our ongoing businesses or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies that could adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with key counterparties. Acquisition, merger and the related integration efforts could divert management attention and resources, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, the operation of the acquired businesses or company may adversely affect our existing profitability, and we may not be able to achieve results in the future similar to those achieved by our existing business or manage growth resulting from the acquisition or merger effectively. Additionally, merger and acquisition transactions are frequently the subject of litigation or other legal proceedings, including actions alleging breaches of fiduciary or other duties. If litigation or other legal proceedings are brought against us or against our board of directors in connection with any acquisition or merger, we might not be successful in defending against such proceedings. An adverse outcome in such matters, as well as the costs and efforts of a defense even if successful, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation or financial position, including through the possible diversion of our resources or distraction of key personnel.

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 stockholders 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 stockholders.