Annaly Capital (NLY) Risk Factors

Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions for which only limited judicial and administrative authorities exist. Even a technical or inadvertent violation could jeopardize our REIT qualification. Our continued qualification as a REIT depends on our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. In addition, our ability to satisfy the REIT qualification requirements depends in part on the actions of third parties over which we have no control or only limited influence, including in cases where we own an equity interest in an entity that is classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

The REIT provisions of the Code could substantially limit our ability to hedge our liabilities. Any income from a properly designated hedging transaction we enter into to manage risk of interest rate changes with respect to borrowings made or to be made, or ordinary obligations incurred or to be incurred, to acquire or carry real estate assets generally does not constitute “gross income” for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests. To the extent that we enter into other types of hedging transactions, the income from those transactions is likely to be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both of the gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may have to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through our TRSs. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities because our TRSs would be subject to tax on gains or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear. In addition, losses in our TRSs generally will not provide any tax benefit, except for being carried forward potentially to offset taxable income in the TRSs for future periods.

To remain qualified as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts that we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. Our ability to acquire and hold our investments is subject to the applicable REIT qualification tests. We must ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our assets consists of cash, cash items, U.S. Government securities and qualified real estate assets. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than U.S. Government securities, qualified real estate assets and securities issued by a TRS) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than U.S. Government securities, qualified real estate assets and securities issued by a TRS) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 20% of the value of our total assets can be represented by securities of one or more TRSs. Changes in the values or other features of our assets could cause inadvertent violations of the REIT requirements. If we fail to comply with the REIT requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences. Additionally, we may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. Accordingly we may be unable to pursue investments that would be otherwise advantageous to us or be required to liquidate from our investment portfolio otherwise attractive investments if we feel it is necessary to satisfy the source-of-income, asset-diversification or distribution requirements for qualifying as a REIT. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

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

We intend to conduct our business so as not to become regulated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. We currently rely on the exemption from registration provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act. Section 3(c)(5)(C), as interpreted by the staff of the SEC, requires us to invest at least 55% of our assets in “mortgages and other liens on and interest in real estate” (“Qualifying Real Estate Assets”) and at least 80% of our assets in Qualifying Real Estate Assets plus our interests in MSR and other real estate related assets. The assets that we acquire, therefore, are limited by this provision of the Investment Company Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Investment Company Act. We rely on an SEC interpretation that “whole pool certificates” that are issued or guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae (“Agency Whole Pool Certificates”) are Qualifying Real Estate Assets under Section 3(c)(5)(C). This interpretation was promulgated by the SEC staff in a no-action letter in the 1980s, was reaffirmed by the SEC in 1992 and has been commonly relied upon by mortgage REITs. On August 31, 2011, the SEC issued a concept release titled “Companies Engaged in the Business of Acquiring Mortgages and Mortgage-Related Instruments” (SEC Release No. IC-29778). In this concept release, the SEC announced it was reviewing interpretive issues related to the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exemption. Among other things, the SEC requested comments on whether it should revisit whether Agency Whole Pool Certificates may be treated as interests in real estate (and presumably Qualifying Real Estate Assets) and whether companies, such as us, whose primary business consists of investing in Agency Whole Pool Certificates are the type of entities that Congress intended to be encompassed by the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C). If the SEC changes its views regarding which securities are Qualifying Real Estate Assets or real estate related assets, adopts a contrary interpretation with respect to Agency Whole Pool Certificates or otherwise believes we do not satisfy the exemption under Section 3(c)(5)(C), we could be required to restructure our activities or sell certain of our assets. The net effect of these factors will be to lower our net interest income, which could negatively affect the market price of shares of our capital stock and our ability to distribute dividends. If we fail to qualify for exemption from registration as an investment company, our ability to use leverage would be substantially reduced, and we would not be able to conduct our business as described. Our business will be materially and adversely affected if we fail to qualify for this exemption.

The interest and principal payments we expect to receive on the Agency mortgage-backed securities in which we invest are guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. Principal and interest payments on Ginnie Mae certificates are directly guaranteed by the U.S. government. Principal and interest payments relating to the securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are only guaranteed by each respective Agency. In September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into the conservatorship of the FHFA, their federal regulator, pursuant to its powers under The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, a part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. In addition to FHFA becoming the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. Department of the Treasury entered into Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements with the FHFA and have taken various actions intended to provide Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with additional liquidity in an effort to ensure their financial stability. In September 2019, FHFA and the U.S. Treasury Department agreed to modifications to the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements that will permit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to maintain capital reserves of $25 billion and $20 billion, respectively. Shortly after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed in federal conservatorship, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury suggested that the guarantee payment structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the U.S. housing finance market should be re-examined. The future roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be significantly reduced and the nature of their guarantees could be eliminated or considerably limited relative to historical measurements. The U.S. Treasury could also stop providing credit support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the future. Any changes to the nature of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could redefine what constitutes an Agency mortgage-backed security and could have broad adverse market implications. While the likelihood that major mortgage finance system reform will be enacted in the short term remains uncertain, it is possible that the adoption of any such reforms could adversely affect the types of assets we can buy, the costs of these assets and our business operations. A reduction in the ability of mortgage loan originators to access Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell their mortgage loans may adversely affect the mortgage markets generally and adversely affect the ability of mortgagors to refinance their mortgage loans. In addition, any decline in the value of securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may affect the value of MBS in general. The change of FHFA leadership and the fact that a permanent Director has yet to be confirmed raise further uncertainties about whether, and if so on what timeline, the Biden administration will address the conservatorships of the GSEs and any comprehensive housing reform.If Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac was eliminated, or their structures were to change in a material manner that is not compatible with our business model, we would not be able to acquire Agency mortgage-backed securities from these entities, which could adversely affect our business operations.

Federal consumer protection laws and regulations regulate residential mortgage loan underwriting and originators’ lending processes, standards, and disclosures to borrowers. These laws and regulations include, among others, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) “ability-to-repay” and “qualified mortgage” regulations. In addition, there are various other federal, state, and local laws and regulations that are intended to discourage predatory lending practices by residential mortgage loan originators. For example, the federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (“HOEPA”) which was expanded under the Dodd Frank Act, prohibits inclusion of certain provisions in residential mortgage loans that have mortgage rates or origination costs in excess of prescribed levels and requires that borrowers be given certain disclosures prior to origination. The Dodd-Frank Act grants enforcement authority and broad discretionary regulatory authority to the CFPB to prohibit or condition terms, acts or practices relating to residential mortgage loans that the CFPB finds abusive, unfair, deceptive or predatory, as well as to take other actions that the CFPB finds are necessary or proper to ensure responsible affordable mortgage credit remains available to consumers. The Dodd-Frank Act also affects the securitization of mortgages (and other assets) with requirements for risk retention by securitizers and requirements for regulating rating agencies. Numerous regulations have been issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, including regulations regarding mortgage loan servicing, underwriting and loan originator compensation and others could be issued in the future. These requirements can and do change as statutes and regulations are enacted, promulgated, amended, and interpreted, and the recent trends among federal and state lawmakers and regulators have been toward increasing laws, regulations, and investigative procedures concerning the mortgage industry generally. As a result, we are unable to fully predict at this time how the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as other laws or regulations that may be adopted in the future, will affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, or the environment for repurchase financing and other forms of borrowing, the investing environment for Agency MBS, non-Agency mortgage-backed securities and/or residential mortgage and MSR. We believe that the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder are likely to continue to increase the economic and compliance costs for participants in the mortgage and securitization industries, including us. Some states have enacted, or may enact, similar laws or regulations, which in some cases may impose restrictions and requirements greater than those in place under federal laws and regulations. In addition, under the anti-predatory lending laws of some states, the origination of certain residential mortgage loans, including loans that are classified as “high cost” loans under applicable law, must satisfy a net tangible benefits test with respect to the borrower. This test, as well as certain standards set forth in the “ability-to-repay” and “qualified mortgage” regulations, may be highly subjective and open to interpretation. As a result, a court may determine that a residential mortgage loan did not meet the applicable standard or test even if the originator reasonably believed such standard or test had been satisfied. Failure of residential mortgage loan originators or servicers to comply with federal consumer protection laws and regulations could subject us, as an assignee or purchaser of these loans (or as an investor in securities backed by these loans), to monetary penalties and defenses to foreclosure, including by recoupment or setoff of damages and costs, which for some violations included the sum of all finance charges and fees paid by the consumer, and could result in rescission of the affected residential mortgage loans, which could adversely impact our business and financial results. On December 10, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted a set of “bright-line” loan pricing thresholds to replace the previous qualified mortgage 43% debt-to-income threshold calculated in accordance with “Appendix Q”. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also created a new category of a qualified mortgage, referred to as a “Seasoned QM”, which consists of first-lien, fixed rate loans that met certain performance requirements over a seasoning period of at least 36 months, are held in portfolio until the end of the seasoning period by the originating creditor or first purchaser, comply with general restrictions on product features and points and fees, and meet certain underwriting requirements. At this time, however, there can be no assurance what impact the final rules will have on the mortgage market and the “ability-to-repay” rules. Furthermore, the temporary qualified mortgage provision applicable to certain mortgage loans eligible for purchase or guarantee by the GSEs under the ability-to-repay, commonly referred to as the “GSE patch,” is scheduled to expire on the earlier of (i) the mandatory compliance date of the final rule amending the general qualified mortgage definition described above (which is July 1, 2021) or (ii) the date that the GSEs exit conservatorship. We cannot predict the impact of its expiration on the mortgage market. On April 27, 2021, the CFPB issued a final rule extending the mandatory compliance date of the General Qualified Mortgage Rule to October 1, 2022. It similarly extends expiration of the GSE patch to October 1, 2022 or the date the applicable GSE exits conservatorship, whichever happens first. Various regulatory measures enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic affect mortgage servicing and could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results. The Federal, state, or local governments may pass additional stimulus bills, foreclosure relief measures and may reinstate foreclosure and eviction moratoriums that may continue to adversely impact the cash flow on mortgage loans. The CFPB Director has publicly stated that CFPB is carefully monitoring conditions in the mortgage market and taking steps to minimize avoidable foreclosures and address any compliance failures, including by conducting prioritized assessments, or targeted supervisory reviews, designed to obtain real-time information from mortgage servicers due to the elevated risk of consumer harm because of the COVID 19 pandemic. On June 28, 2021, the CFPB finalized amendments to the federal mortgage servicing regulations designed to support the housing market’s transition to post-pandemic operation. The rules established temporary special safeguards to help ensure that borrowers have time before foreclosure to explore their options, including loan modifications and selling their homes. The rules cover loans on principal residences, generally exclude small servicers, and took effect on August 31, 2021. On November 10, 2021, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the CFPB, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the state financial regulators (collectively, agencies) announced that they were discontinuing the more flexible supervisory approach announced in April 2020, concluding that servicers have had sufficient time to adjust their operations by, among other things, taking steps to work with consumers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and developing more robust business continuity and remote work capabilities. CFPB’s December 2021 Supervisory Highlights shows, among other things, that CFPB is prioritizing compliance with Regulation Z and Regulation X, as well as unfair and deceptive acts or practices prohibited by the CFPA. This enhanced scrutiny is likely to continue to increase the economic and compliance costs for participants in the mortgage and securitization industries, including us.

While we are not required to obtain licenses to purchase mortgage-backed securities, the purchase of residential mortgage loans and certain business purpose mortgage loans in the secondary market may, in some circumstances, require us to maintain various state licenses. Acquiring the right to service residential mortgage loans and certain business purpose mortgage loans may also, in some circumstances, require us to maintain various state licenses even though we currently do not expect to directly engage in loan servicing ourselves. As a result, we could be delayed in conducting certain business if we were first required to obtain a state license. We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain all of the licenses we need or that we would not experience significant delays in obtaining these licenses. Furthermore, once licenses are issued we are required to comply with various information reporting and other regulatory requirements to maintain those licenses, and there is no assurance that we will be able to satisfy those requirements or other regulatory requirements applicable to our business of acquiring mortgage loans on an ongoing basis. Our failure to obtain or maintain required licenses or our failure to comply with regulatory requirements that are applicable to our business of acquiring mortgage loans may restrict our residential credit business and investment options and could harm our business and expose us to penalties or other claims.

Neither ordinary nor capital gain distributions with respect to our stock nor gain from the sale of our stock are anticipated to constitute unrelated business taxable income to a tax-exempt investor. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule. In particular: •part of the income and gain recognized by certain qualified employee pension trusts with respect to our stock may be treated as unrelated business taxable income if shares of our stock are predominantly held by qualified employee pension trusts, and we are required to rely on a special look-through rule for purposes of meeting one of the REIT ownership tests, and we are not operated in a manner to avoid treatment of such income or gain as unrelated business taxable income; •part of the income and gain recognized by a tax-exempt investor with respect to our stock would constitute unrelated business taxable income if the investor incurs debt in order to acquire the stock; •part or all of the income or gain recognized with respect to our stock by social clubs, voluntary employee benefit associations, supplemental unemployment benefit trusts and qualified group legal services plans which are exempt from U.S. federal income taxation under the Code may be treated as unrelated business taxable income; •to the extent that we (or a part of us, or a disregarded subsidiary of ours) are a “taxable mortgage pool,” or if we hold residual interests in a real estate mortgage investment conduit or a CLO; •a portion of the distributions paid to a tax-exempt stockholder that is allocable to excess inclusion income may be treated as unrelated business taxable income.

A TRS must pay income tax at regular corporate rates on any income that it earns. In certain circumstances, the ability of our TRSs to deduct interest expenses for U.S. federal income tax may be limited. Such income, however, is not required to be distributed. Our TRSs will pay corporate income tax on their taxable income, and their after-tax net income will be available for distribution to us. Moreover, the annual gross income tests that must be satisfied to maintain our REIT qualification may limit the amount of dividends that we can receive from our TRSs. Generally, not more than 25% of our gross income can be derived from non-real estate related sources, such as dividends from a TRS. If, for any taxable year, the dividends we receive from our TRSs, when added to our other items of non-real estate related income, were to represent more than 25% of our total gross income for the year, we could be denied REIT status, unless we were able to demonstrate, among other things, that our failure of the gross income test was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. The limitations imposed by the REIT gross income tests may impede our ability to distribute assets from our TRSs to us in the form of dividends. Certain asset transfers may, therefore, have to be structured as purchase and sale transactions upon which our TRSs recognize a taxable gain.

If interest accrues on an indebtedness owed by a TRS to its parent REIT at a rate in excess of a commercially reasonable rate, then the REIT would be subject to tax at a rate of 100% on the excess of (i) interest payments made by a TRS to its parent REIT over (ii) the amount of interest that would have been payable had interest accrued on the indebtedness at a commercially reasonable rate. A tax at a rate of 100% is also imposed on any transaction between a TRS and its parent REIT to the extent the transaction gives rise to deductions to the TRS that are in excess of the deductions that would have been allowable had the transaction been entered into on arm’s-length terms. While we will scrutinize all of our transactions with our TRSs in an effort to ensure that we do not become subject to these taxes, there is no assurance that we will be successful. We may not be able to avoid application of these taxes.

Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, tax on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, excise taxes, state or local income, property and transfer taxes, such as mortgage recording taxes, and other taxes. In addition, in order to meet the REIT qualification requirements, prevent the recognition of certain types of non-cash income, or to avert the imposition of a 100% tax that applies to certain gains derived by a REIT from dealer property or inventory, we may hold some of our assets through our TRSs or other subsidiary corporations that will be subject to corporate level income tax at regular rates.

The 100% tax on prohibited transactions will limit our ability to engage in transactions, including certain methods of structuring CMOs, which would be treated as prohibited transactions for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The term “prohibited transaction” generally includes a sale or other disposition of property (including mortgage loans, but other than foreclosure property, as discussed below) that is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business by us or by a borrower that has issued a shared appreciation mortgage or similar debt instrument to us. We could be subject to this tax if we were to dispose of or structure CMOs in a manner that was treated as a prohibited transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We intend to conduct our operations at the REIT level so that no asset that we own (or are treated as owning) will be treated as or as having been, held for sale to customers, and that a sale of any such asset will not be treated as having been in the ordinary course of our business. As a result, we may choose not to engage in certain transactions at the REIT level, and may limit the structures we utilize for our CMO transactions, even though the sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us. In addition, whether property is held “primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business” depends on the particular facts and circumstances. No assurance can be given that any property that we sell will not be treated as property held for sale to customers, or that we can comply with certain safe-harbor provisions of the Code that would prevent such treatment. The 100% tax does not apply to gains from the sale of property that is held through a TRS or other taxable corporation, although such income will be subject to tax in the hands of the corporation at regular corporate rates. We intend to structure our activities to avoid the prohibited transaction tax.

We may enter into securitization transactions and other financing transactions that could result in us, or a portion of our assets, being treated as a taxable mortgage pool for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If we enter into such a transaction in the future, we could be taxable at the highest corporate income tax rate on a portion of the income arising from a taxable mortgage pool, referred to as "excess inclusion income," that is allocable to the percentage of our shares held in record name by disqualified organizations (generally tax-exempt entities that are exempt from the tax on unrelated business taxable income, such as state pension plans and charitable remainder trusts and government entities). In that case, we could reduce distributions to such stockholders by the amount of tax paid by us that is attributable to such stockholder's ownership. If we were to realize excess inclusion income, IRS guidance indicates that the excess inclusion income would be allocated among our stockholders in proportion to the dividends paid. Excess inclusion income cannot be offset by losses of a stockholder. If the stockholder is a tax-exempt entity and not a disqualified organization, then this income would be fully taxable as unrelated business taxable income under Section 512 of the Code. If the stockholder is a foreign person, it would be subject to U.S. federal income tax at the maximum tax rate and withholding will be required on this income without reduction or exemption pursuant to any otherwise applicable income tax treaty.

The extent of the COVID-19-related disruptions and the duration of the pandemic as well as the long-term impacts of the social, economic, and financial disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are unknown at this time and may be severe. Governments have adopted, and we expect will continue to adopt, policies, laws and plans intended to address the COVID-19 pandemic and adverse developments in the credit, financial and mortgage markets. While the U.S. Federal Reserve, the U.S. government and other governments have implemented unprecedented financial support or relief measures in response to concerns surrounding the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ongoing results of such measures or the results of such measures ending, cannot be predicted and we cannot assure you that these programs will be effective or sufficient at addressing the adverse impacts of the pandemic or otherwise have a positive impact on our business.

There are a number of factors that can have a significant impact on whether we are able to execute or participate in a securitization transaction, and whether such a transaction is profitable to us or results in a loss. One of these factors is the price we pay for the mortgage loans that we securitize, which, in the case of residential mortgage loans, is impacted by the level of competition in the marketplace for acquiring mortgage loans and the relative desirability to originators of retaining mortgage loans as investments or selling them to third parties such as us. As such, we can provide no assurance that we will be able to identify and make investments in residential mortgage loans at attractive levels and pricing, which could adversely affect our ability to execute future securitizations in this space. Another factor that impacts the profitability of a securitization transaction is the cost to us of the short-term warehouse financing facilities that we use to finance our holdings of mortgage loans prior to securitization, which cost is affected by a number of factors including the availability of this type of financing to us, the interest rate on this type of financing, the duration of the financing we incur, and the percentage of our mortgage loans for which third parties are willing to provide short-term financing. After we acquire mortgage loans that we intend to securitize, we can also suffer losses if the value of those loans declines prior to securitization. Declines in the value of a mortgage loan, for example, can be due to, among other things, changes in interest rates, changes in the credit quality of the loan, and changes in the projected yields required by investors to invest in securitization transactions. To the extent we seek to hedge against a decline in loan value due to changes in interest rates, there is a cost of hedging that also affects whether a securitization is profitable. Other factors that can significantly affect whether a securitization transaction is profitable to us include the criteria and conditions that rating agencies apply and require when they assign ratings to the mortgage-backed securities issued in our securitization transactions, including the percentage of mortgage-backed securities issued in a securitization transaction that the rating agencies will assign a triple-A rating to, which is also referred to as a rating agency subordination level. Rating agency subordination levels can be impacted by numerous factors, including, without limitation, the credit quality of the loans securitized, the geographic distribution of the loans to be securitized, the structure of the securitization transaction and other applicable rating agency criteria. All other factors being equal, the greater the percentage of the mortgage-backed securities issued in a securitization transaction that the rating agencies will assign a triple-A rating to, the more profitable the transaction will be to us. The price that investors in mortgage-backed securities will pay for securities issued in our securitization transactions also has a significant impact on the profitability of the transactions to us, and these prices are impacted by numerous market forces and factors. In addition, the underwriter(s) or placement agent(s) we select for securitization transactions, and the terms of their engagement, can also impact the profitability of our securitization transactions. Also, transaction costs incurred in executing transactions impact the profitability of our securitization transactions and any liability that we may incur, or may be required to reserve for, in connection with executing a transaction can cause a loss to us. To the extent that we are not able to profitably execute future securitizations of residential mortgage loans or other assets, including for the reasons described above or for other reasons, it could have a material adverse impact on our business and financial results.

As a REIT, we must distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and by excluding any net capital gain). The required distribution limits the amount we have available for other business purposes, including amounts to fund our growth. Also, it is possible that because of the differences between the time we actually receive revenue or pay expenses and the period we report those items for distribution purposes, we may have to borrow funds on a short-term basis to meet the 90% distribution requirement. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a non-deductible 4% excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our stockholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under U.S. federal tax laws. We intend to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the REIT qualification requirements of the Code. From time to time, we may generate taxable income greater than our income for financial reporting purposes prepared in accordance with GAAP, or differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash may occur. For example, if we purchase Agency or non-Agency securities at a discount, we generally are required to accrete the discount into taxable income prior to receiving the cash proceeds of the accreted discount at maturity, and in some cases, potentially recognize the discount in taxable income once such amounts are reflected in our financial statements. If we do not have other funds available in these situations we could be required to (i) borrow funds on unfavorable terms, (ii) sell investments at disadvantageous prices, (iii) distribute our own stock, or (iv) distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions to make distributions sufficient to enable us to pay out enough of our taxable income to satisfy the REIT distribution requirement and to avoid the corporate income tax and 4% excise tax in a particular year. Also, we or our subsidiaries may hold debt investments that could require subsequent modifications. If an amendment to an outstanding debt is a “significant modification” for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the modified debt may be deemed to have been reissued in a debt-for-debt taxable exchange with the borrower. This deemed reissuance could result in a portion of the modified debt not qualifying as a good REIT asset if the underlying security has declined in value, and would cause us to recognize income to the extent the principal amount of the modified debt exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified debt. These scenarios could increase our costs or reduce our stockholders’ equity. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to grow, which could adversely affect the value of our stock. Conversely, from time to time, we may generate taxable income less than our income for financial reporting purposes due to GAAP and tax accounting differences or, as mentioned above, the timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash. In such circumstances we may make distributions according to our business plan that are within our wherewithal from an economic or cash management perspective, but that are labeled as return of capital for tax reporting purposes, as they are in excess of taxable income in that period.