New York Mortgage (NYMT) Risk Analysis

Dividends on our Series D Preferred Stock, Series E Preferred Stock and Series F Preferred Stock accrue cumulatively at a fixed rate for a specified period of time (the "Fixed Rate Period"). At the conclusion of the Fixed Rate Period, dividends on our Series D Preferred Stock, Series E Preferred Stock and Series F Preferred Stock, accrue cumulatively at a floating rate equal to a benchmark rate plus a spread, as set forth in the Articles Supplementary classifying and designating such series of preferred stock. The Fixed Rate Period for the Series E Preferred Stock concluded on January 14, 2025. The Fixed Rate Period for the Series D Preferred Stock and Series F Preferred Stock conclude on October 14, 2027 and October 14, 2026, respectively. As the rate at which dividends accrue on our Series D Preferred Stock, Series E Preferred Stock and Series F Preferred Stock converts from a fixed rate to floating rate, the dividend rate could fluctuate in an unpredictable manner. Based on current interest rate levels, the floating dividend rate exceeds, or may materially exceed, the fixed rate in effect during the Fixed Rate Period for the applicable series. The floating rates on the Series D Preferred Stock, Series E Preferred Stock and Series F Preferred Stock subject us to interest rate risk and could significantly increase the cost of dividends on such preferred stock. Such increased dividend costs could affect our ability to make cash distributions to our stockholders at our intended levels, or at all, or otherwise materially adversely affect our earnings, cash flows and financial condition. Additionally, following the Fixed Rate Period for each of our Series D Preferred Stock, Series E Preferred Stock and Series F Preferred Stock, we may redeem such series of preferred stock at our option, in whole or in part, at any time. Should we choose to redeem a series of our preferred stock at the conclusion of its Fixed Rate Period to avoid additional or unpredictable dividend expenses or for other strategic reasons, we may be forced to raise additional funds or sell assets at unfavorable times or on unfavorable terms to us.

As part of our risk management process, models may be used to evaluate, depending on the asset class, home price appreciation and depreciation by county or region, prepayment speeds and frequency, cost and timing of foreclosures, as well as other factors. Certain assumptions used as inputs to the models may be based on historical trends. These trends may not be indicative of future results. Furthermore, the assumptions underlying the models may prove to be inaccurate, causing the model output also to be incorrect. In the event models and data prove to be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon expose us to potential risks. For example, by relying on incorrect models and data, we may buy certain assets at prices that are too high, sell certain assets at prices that are too low or miss favorable opportunities altogether, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and growth prospects.

While the determination of the fair value of our assets generally takes into consideration valuations provided by third-party dealers and pricing services, the final determination of exit price fair values for our assets is based on our judgment, and such valuations may differ from those provided by third-party dealers and pricing services. Valuations of certain assets may be difficult to obtain or may not be reliable (particularly as related to residential loans, as discussed below). In general, dealers and pricing services heavily disclaim their valuations as such valuations are not intended to be binding bid prices. Additionally, dealers may claim to furnish valuations only as an accommodation and without special compensation, and so they may disclaim any and all liability arising out of any inaccuracy or incompleteness in valuations. 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. Our results of operations, financial condition and business could be materially adversely affected if our fair value determinations of these assets are materially higher than could actually be realized in the market.

We periodically evaluate real estate assets for indicators of impairment, which include, among other indicators, deteriorating operational performance, declining market conditions, legal and environmental concerns, and our ability and intent to hold each asset. If impairment indicators exist for long-lived assets to be held and used, such as real estate held by our joint venture equity investments in multi-family properties or our single-family rental properties, we may record an impairment of real estate to reduce the carrying value of such asset to its estimated fair value. Real estate assets that are held for sale or in disposal group held for sale, such as those owned by certain of our joint venture equity investments in multi-family properties, are recorded at the lower of their net depreciated carrying amount or estimated net fair value. In the event that the estimated net fair value of a real estate asset is determined to be less than its net depreciated carrying amount, an impairment of real estate is recorded on our consolidated statements of operations for the amount of the difference. Subsequent decreases, if any, in the net fair value of the real estate assets held for sale are recorded as impairments of real estate. Further, if real estate or joint venture equity investments are determined to no longer meet the criteria to be accounted for as held for sale, they are returned to held and used at the lower of (a) their carrying amount before they were classified as held for sale, adjusted for any depreciation (amortization) expense that would have been recognized had the assets remained in their previous classification, or (b) their fair value at the date of the subsequent decision not to sell the real estate or joint venture equity investment, and downward adjustments, if any, are reported in loss on reclassification of disposal group in the consolidated statements of operations. We determine the fair value of real estate assets based upon discounted cash flow analyses using property financial information and assumptions regarding market rent, revenue and expense growth, capitalization rates and return rates. The evaluation of anticipated cash flows is highly subjective and is based in part on assumptions regarding future occupancy, rental rates and capital requirements that could differ materially from actual results in future periods. A worsening real estate market may cause us to reevaluate the assumptions used in our estimation of fair value and/or impairment analysis. For the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, we recognized net impairment losses of approximately $48.9 million and $89.5 million, respectively. Also in the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, we recognized losses on reclassification of disposal group of approximately $14.6 million and $16.2 million, respectively. These losses have a direct, adverse impact on our net income because recording an impairment loss or loss on reclassification of disposal group results in an immediate negative adjustment to net income. Impairment charges, such as those incurred in 2024 and 2023, adversely affected our financial condition, results of operations, book value, cash available for distribution, including cash available for us to pay distributions to our stockholders, and per share trading price of our common stock. Such impairment charges could adversely affect our earnings and financial condition in the future.

We expect to value our investments in many credit sensitive assets based on loss-adjusted yields taking into account estimated future losses on the loans or other assets that we are investing in directly or that underlie securities owned by us, and the estimated impact of these losses on expected future cash flows. Our loss estimates may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from our estimates. In the event that we underestimate the losses relative to the price we pay for a particular investment, we may experience material losses with respect to such investment.

A higher interest rate environment, which we have experienced since 2022, generally results in a reduction in the demand for mortgage loans due to the higher cost of borrowing and new construction redevelopment or renovation. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans originated or in new construction, redevelopment or renovation of multi-family properties may affect the volume of targeted assets available to us, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment and business objectives. We also expect that higher interest rates will cause our targeted assets that were issued, originated or acquired prior to an interest rate increase to experience, as certain of them did in 2024, a decline in their fair value and/or provide yields that are below prevailing market interest rates. If higher interest rates or interest rate volatility cause us to be unable to acquire a sufficient volume of our targeted assets with a yield that is sufficiently above our borrowing cost, our ability to satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and make distributions to our stockholders will be materially and adversely affected. In addition, a portion of the RMBS and residential loans we invest in may be comprised of ARMs that are 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 over the life of the security or loan. Our borrowings typically are not subject to similar restrictions. Accordingly, in a period of rapidly increasing interest rates, the interest rates paid on our borrowings could increase without limitation while interest rate caps could limit the interest rates on our securities backed by ARMs or residential loans comprised of ARMs in our portfolio. This problem is magnified for securities backed by or residential loans comprised of ARMs and hybrid ARMs that are not fully indexed. Further, certain securities backed by or residential mortgage loans comprised of ARMs and hybrid ARMs may be subject to periodic payment caps that result in a portion of the interest being deferred and added to the principal outstanding. As a result, the payments we receive on securities backed by or residential mortgage loans comprised of ARMs and hybrid ARMs may be lower than the related debt service costs. These factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Interest rate fluctuations will also cause variances in the yield curve, which may reduce our net income. The relationship between short-term and longer-term interest rates is often referred to as the "yield curve." If short-term interest rates rise disproportionately relative to longer-term interest rates (a flattening of the yield curve), our borrowing costs may increase more rapidly than the interest income earned on our interest-earning assets. Additionally, to the extent cash flows from investments that return scheduled and unscheduled principal are reinvested, the spread between the yields of the new investments and available borrowing rates may decline, which would likely decrease our net income. It is also possible that short-term interest rates may exceed longer-term interest rates (a yield curve inversion), as they did from the middle of 2022 into the third quarter of 2024, in which event our borrowing costs may exceed our interest income and we could incur significant operating losses.

A significant portion of the assets held in our investment portfolio have a fixed coupon rate, generally for a significant period, and in some cases, for the average maturity of the asset. At the same time, certain of our borrowings provide for a payment reset period of as short as 30 days. In addition, the average maturity of our borrowings generally will be shorter than the average maturity of the assets currently in our portfolio and certain other targeted assets in which we seek to invest. We use swap agreements and interest rate caps as a means for attempting to fix the cost of certain of our liabilities over a period of time; however, these agreements would not be sufficient to match the cost of all our liabilities against all of our investments. In the event we experience unexpectedly high or low prepayment rates on the assets in our portfolio, our strategy for matching our assets with our liabilities is more likely to be unsuccessful which may result in reduced earnings or losses and reduced cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We are not required to observe any specific diversification criteria. As a result, our investment portfolio may, at times, be concentrated in certain asset types that are subject to higher risk of delinquency, default or foreclosure, or secured by properties concentrated in a limited number of real estate sectors or geographic locations, which increases, with respect to those asset types, sectors or geographic locations, our exposure to economic downturns and risks associated with the real estate and lending industries in general, thereby increasing the risk of loss and the magnitude of potential losses to us and our stockholders if one or more of these asset or property types perform poorly or the states or regions in which these properties are located are negatively impacted. As of December 31, 2024, 29.0%, 26.6% and 8.2% of the outstanding balance of our Mezzanine Lending investments were made on properties located in Florida, Texas and Arizona, respectively, and 44.7%, 31.1% and 10.0% of our joint venture equity investments owned multi-family properties located in Texas, Florida and Kentucky, respectively. Our direct and indirect investments in multi-family properties are subject to the ability of the property owner to generate net income from operating the property, which is impacted by numerous factors and developments, including many risks that affect real estate generally. See "-Our investments in multi-family properties are subject to the ability of the property owner to generate net income from operating the property as well as the risks of delinquency, default and foreclosure" and "-Our business is subject to risks particular to real property and real estate-related assets." To the extent any of these factors materially adversely impact the multi-family property sector or the geographic regions in which we invest, the market values of our multi-family assets and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. Similarly, as of December 31, 2024, approximately 41.9% of our total investment portfolio was comprised of residential loans and non-Agency RMBS, and 42.4% was comprised of Agency RMBS. Moreover, as of December 31, 2024, significant portions of the properties that secure our residential loans, including loans that secure Consolidated SLST, were concentrated in California, Florida, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Illinois among other states. California is particularly susceptible to earthquake and wildfire risks while Florida and Texas are susceptible to hurricane, wind and flood risks. To the extent that our portfolio is concentrated in any region, or by type of asset or real estate sector, downturns or developments relating generally to such region, type of borrower, asset or sector may result in defaults or losses on a number of our assets within a short time period, which may materially adversely affect our business, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. See "-Our business is subject to risks particular to real property and real estate-related assets."

We acquire and manage residential loans, including performing, re-performing, non-performing and business purpose loans and loans that may not meet or conform to the underwriting standards of any GSE. Residential loans are subject to increased risks of loss. Unlike Agency RMBS, the residential loans we invest in generally are not guaranteed by the federal government or any GSE. Additionally, by directly acquiring residential loans, we do not receive the structural credit enhancements that benefit senior securities of RMBS. A residential 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. 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. A certain portion of the loans we own or seek to acquire have been purchased by us at a discount to par value. These residential loans sell at a discount because they generally constitute riskier investments than those selling at or above par value. The residential loans we invest in may be distressed or purchased at a discount because a borrower may have defaulted thereupon, because the borrower is or has been in the past delinquent on paying all or a portion of his obligation under the loan, because the loan may otherwise contain credit quality that is considered to be poor, because of errors by the originator in the loan origination underwriting process or because the loan documentation fails to meet certain standards. In addition, non-performing or sub-performing loans may require a substantial amount of workout negotiations and/or restructuring, which may divert the attention of our management team 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. Although we typically expect to receive less than the principal amount or face value of the residential loans that we purchase, the return that we in fact receive thereupon may be less than our investment in such loans due to the failure of the loans to perform or reperform. An economic downturn would exacerbate the risks of the recovery of the full value of the loan or the cost of our investment therein. Finally, residential loans are also subject to "special hazard" risk (property damage caused by hazards, such as earthquakes or environmental hazards, not covered by standard property insurance policies), and to bankruptcy risk (reduction in a borrower's mortgage debt by a bankruptcy court). In addition, claims may be asserted against us on account of our position as a 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.

As of December 31, 2024, approximately 25.9% of the asset value of our total investment portfolio is comprised of business purpose loans. Business purpose loans are directly exposed to losses resulting from default and foreclosure. 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 mortgages. Whether or not a loan is originated in accordance with our underwriting standards for such 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. Moreover, in the case of business purpose loans made to a borrower who then rents the property to a tenant, local, state or federal government eviction proceeding requirements may delay foreclosure or liquidation proceedings or cause us to incur additional expense. Any costs or delays involved in the completion of a foreclosure of the loan or a liquidation of the underlying property will further reduce the proceeds and thus increase the loss. Business purpose loans we own are subject to similar risks as those described above with respect to residential mortgage loans to the extent business purpose loan borrowers do not timely remit payments of principal and interest relating to their mortgage loans. In addition, if tenants who rent their residence from a multifamily or business purpose loan borrower are unable to make rental payments, are unwilling to make rental payments, or a waiver of the requirement to make rental payments on a timely basis, or at all, is available under the terms of any applicable forbearance or waiver agreement or program (which rental payment forbearance or waiver program may be available as a result of a government-sponsored or -imposed program or under any such agreement or program a landlord may otherwise offer to tenants), then the value of business purpose loans we own will likely be impaired, which would negatively impact our business. A portion of our business purpose loan portfolio currently is, and in the future may be, delinquent and subject to increased risks of credit loss for a variety of reasons, including, without limitation, because the underlying property is too highly-leveraged or the borrower experiences financial distress. Indeed, loans similar to business purpose bridge loans performed poorly during the 2008 financial crisis due, in large part, to high leverage and borrower distress and it is likely these types of loans may perform poorly in an economic downturn or in an environment of decreasing real estate prices. Additionally, business purpose bridge loans on properties in transition may involve a greater risk of loss than traditional mortgage loans and this risk may be heightened during periods of rising interest rates or declining home values. This type of loan is typically used for acquiring and rehabilitating or improving the quality of single-family residential investment properties and generally serves as an interim financing solution for borrowers and/or properties prior to the borrower selling the property or stabilizing the property and obtaining long-term permanent financing. The typical borrower of these business purpose bridge loans has often identified an undervalued asset that has been under-managed or is located in a recovering market. If the market in which the asset is located experiences a downturn or fails to improve according to the borrower's projections, or if the borrower fails to improve the quality of the asset's management or the value of the asset or the borrower's expenses exceed expectations due to rising costs, rising interest rates or otherwise without a corresponding increase in asset value or income to be derived from the property, the borrower may not receive a sufficient return on the asset to satisfy the transitional loan, and we bear the risk that we may not recover some or all of our investment. In addition, borrowers often use the proceeds of a conventional mortgage to repay a business purpose bridge loan. Business purpose bridge loans therefore are subject to risk of a borrower's inability to obtain permanent financing to repay the loan. Business purpose bridge loans are also subject to risks of borrower defaults, bankruptcies, fraud, and other losses. In the event of any default under business purpose bridge loans that may be held by us, we bear the risk of loss of principal and non-payment of interest and fees to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the mortgage collateral and the principal amount and unpaid interest of the transitional loan. To the extent we suffer such losses with respect to these loans, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected.

As of December 31, 2024, we owned a 50% equity interest in an entity that originates residential loans. Unlike our investments in residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities ("MBS"), our investments in the loan originator are unsecured and not collateralized by any property of the originator. In addition, we do not manage the loan originator in which we have made investments, and because none of our investments give us a controlling stake in the loan originator, our ability to influence the business and operations of the originator is limited, in some instances significantly so. Also, because the loan originator is a private closely-held enterprise, there are significant restrictions on our ability to sell or otherwise transfer our investments (which are generally illiquid). In the event that the loan originator in which we have made investments should experience a significant decline in its business and operations or otherwise not be able to respond adequately to managerial, compliance or operational challenges that it may encounter, we may be required to write-down all or a portion of the applicable investment, which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and our book value.

Delinquent loans may require a substantial amount of workout negotiations or restructuring, which may entail, among other things, a reduction in the interest rate or capitalization of past due interest. However, even if restructurings are successfully accomplished, risks still exist that borrowers will not be able or willing to maintain the restructured payments or refinance the restructured mortgage upon maturity. If restructuring is not successful, we may find it necessary to foreclose on the underlying property, and the foreclosure process may be lengthy and expensive, including out-of-pocket costs and increased use of our internal resources. Borrowers 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 exert negotiating pressure on us to agree to a modification of the loan or a favorable buy-out of the borrower's position. In some states, foreclosure actions can sometimes take several years or more to litigate. Foreclosure may create a negative public perception of the related mortgaged property, resulting in a decrease in 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. Furthermore, any costs or delays involved in the completion of a foreclosure of the loan or a liquidation of the underlying property will further reduce the proceeds and thus increase the loss. Any such reductions could materially and adversely affect the value of the loan and could, in aggregate, have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The difficulty in valuation is particularly significant with respect to our less liquid investments such as our re-performing loans ("RPL"s) and non-performing loans ("NPL"s). RPLs are loans on which a borrower was previously delinquent but has resumed repaying. Our ability to sell RPLs for a profit depends on the borrower continuing to make payments. An RPL could become a NPL, which could reduce our earnings. Our investments in residential whole loans may require us to engage in workout negotiations, restructuring and/or the possibility of foreclosure. These processes may be lengthy and expensive. If we foreclose on underlying properties, we, through a designated servicer that we retain, will have to manage these properties and may not be able to sell them. We may work with our third-party servicers and seek to help a borrower to refinance an NPL or RPL to realize greater value from such loan. However, there may be impediments to executing a refinancing strategy for NPLs and RPLs. For example, a number of mortgage lenders have adjusted their loan programs and underwriting standards, which has reduced the availability of mortgage credit to prospective borrowers. This has resulted in reduced availability of financing alternatives for borrowers seeking to refinance their mortgage loans. In addition, the value of some borrowers' homes may decline below the amount of the mortgage loans on such homes resulting in higher loan-to-value ratios, which may leave the borrowers with insufficient equity in their homes to permit them to refinance. With prevailing mortgage interest rates having risen in a meaningful way from their recent low levels, these risks may be exacerbated. The effect of the above would likely serve to make the refinancing of NPLs and RPLs potentially more difficult and less profitable for us.

We own and make preferred equity investments in entities that own multi-family property. We have made in the past, and may originate in the future mezzanine loans, which are loans secured by a pledge of the ownership interests of either the entity owning the multi-family property or a pledge of the ownership interests of the entity that owns the interest in the entity owning the multi-family property. These types of assets involve a higher degree of risk than senior mortgage lending secured by income-producing real property, because the loan may become unsecured or our equity investment may be effectively extinguished as a result of foreclosure by the senior lender. In addition, mezzanine loans and preferred equity investments are often used to achieve a very high leverage on large commercial projects, resulting in less equity in the property and increasing the risk of loss of principal or investment. If a borrower defaults on our mezzanine loan or debt senior to our loan, or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, our mezzanine loan or preferred equity investment will be satisfied only after the senior debt, in the case of a mezzanine loan, or all senior and subordinated debt, in the case of a preferred equity investment, is paid in full. Where senior debt exists, the presence of intercreditor arrangements, which in this case are arrangements between the lender of the senior loan and the mezzanine lender or preferred equity investor that stipulate the rights and obligations of the parties, may limit our ability to amend our loan documents, assign our loans, accept prepayments, exercise our remedies or control decisions made in bankruptcy proceedings relating to borrowers or preferred equity issuers. As a result, we may not recover some or all of our investment, which could result in significant losses.

We depend upon the availability of adequate capital and financing sources on acceptable terms to fund our operations, meet financial obligations, and finance asset acquisitions. However, the capital and credit markets have experienced unprecedented levels of volatility and disruption in recent years that have generally negatively impacted the availability of credit from time-to-time. Continued volatility or disruption in the credit or finance markets or a downturn in the global economy could materially adversely affect one or more of our lenders and could cause lenders to be unwilling or unable to provide us with financing, to increase the costs of that financing or make the terms less attractive, or to become insolvent. Such volatility or disruption could also limit or halt our access to securitization financing. Although we finance some of our assets with longer-term financing, we have also historically relied on access to short-term borrowings in the form of repurchase agreements to finance our investments. Because our repurchase agreements typically have terms of one year or less, our repurchase agreement counterparties may respond to market conditions in a manner that makes it more difficult for us to renew or replace on a continuous basis our maturing short-term financings and such counterparties have imposed and may in the future impose more onerous conditions when rolling such financings. If we are not able to renew or roll our existing repurchase agreements or arrange for new financing on terms acceptable to us, or if we default on our financial covenants, are otherwise unable to access funds under our financing arrangements, or if we are required to post more collateral or face larger haircuts on our financings, 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. If we are faced with a larger haircut in order to roll a financing with a particular counterparty, or in order to move a financing from one counterparty to another, then we would need to make up the difference between the two haircuts in the form of cash, which could similarly require us to dispose of assets at significantly depressed prices and at inopportune times, which could cause significant losses. Issues related to financing are exacerbated in times of significant dislocation in the financial markets. It is possible that our financing counterparties will become unwilling or unable to provide us with financing, and we could be forced to sell our assets at an inopportune time when prices are depressed or markets are illiquid, which could cause significant losses. Indeed, we experienced these types of conditions during the height of the market disruption caused by COVID-19 and incurred significant losses. In addition, if the regulatory capital requirements imposed on our financing counterparties change, they may be required to significantly increase the cost of the financing that they provide to us, or to increase the amounts of collateral they require as a condition to providing us with financing. Our financing counterparties 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 financings, 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 repurchase agreements will be directly related to our counterparties' valuation of our assets that collateralize the outstanding repurchase agreement financing. In general, this could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity or require us to sell assets at an inopportune time or price. Finally, securitization financing has been limited from time to time in the recent past. A prolonged decline in securitization activity may limit borrowings under warehouse facilities and other credit facilities that are intended to be refinanced by such securitizations. Moreover, other forms of longer-term financing have historically been difficult for mortgage REITs to access or contain less favorable terms. 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 restrict our operations or financing or consume a larger portion of our cash flow from operations, thereby reducing funds available for our operations, future business opportunities, cash distributions 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 investment activities and/or dispose of assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We use repurchase agreements to finance a portion of our investments. In certain cases, these repurchase agreements allow the lender, to varying degrees, to revalue the collateral to values that the lender considers to reflect the market value. In these cases, when a lender determines that the value of the collateral has decreased, it may initiate a margin call, in which case we may be required by the lending institution to provide additional collateral or pay down a portion of the funds advanced, but we may not have the funds available to do so. Typically, repurchase agreements grant the repurchase agreement counterparty the absolute right to reevaluate the fair market value of the assets that cover the amount financed under the repurchase agreement at any time. If a repurchase agreement counterparty determines in its sole discretion that the value of the assets subject to the repurchase agreement financing has decreased, it has the right to initiate a margin call. These valuations 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 margin call requires us to transfer additional assets to a repurchase agreement counterparty without any advance of funds from the counterparty for such transfer or to repay a portion of the outstanding repurchase agreement financing. We would also be required to post additional collateral if haircuts increase under a repurchase agreement. In these situations, we could be forced to sell assets at significantly depressed prices to meet such margin calls and to maintain adequate liquidity or to otherwise reduce the amount of leverage we use to finance our business, which could cause significant losses. In the event we do not have sufficient liquidity to meet such requirements, lending institutions can accelerate our indebtedness, increase our borrowing rates, liquidate our collateral at inopportune times or prices and terminate our ability to borrow. Significant margin calls 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 securities to decline. As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, we observed a mark-down of a portion of our assets by our repurchase agreement counterparties during the first quarter of 2020, resulting in us having to pay cash and securities to satisfy margin calls that were well beyond historical norms. Disruptive events, including events similar to these, could have a material adverse impact on our liquidity and could lead to significant losses, a rapid deterioration of our financial condition and possibly require us to file for protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

We leverage our equity through borrowings, generally through the use of repurchase agreements, longer-term structured debt, such as CDOs and other forms of secured debt, or corporate-level debt, such as senior unsecured notes and convertible notes. We may, in the future, utilize other forms of borrowing. The amount of leverage we incur varies depending on the asset type, our ability to obtain borrowings, the cost of the debt and our lenders' estimates of the value of our portfolio's cash flow. The return on our investments and cash available for distribution to our stockholders may be reduced to the extent that changes in market conditions cause the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income that can be derived from the assets we hold in our investment portfolio. Further, the leverage on our equity may exacerbate any losses we incur. Our debt service payments will reduce the net income available for distribution to our stockholders. We may not be able to meet our debt service obligations and, to the extent that we cannot, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to sale to satisfy our debt obligations. Although we have established target leverage amounts for many of our assets, there is no established limitation, other than as may be required by our financing arrangements or our investment guidelines, on our leverage ratio or on the aggregate amount of our borrowings. As a result, we may still incur substantially more debt or take other actions which could have the effect of diminishing our ability to make payments on our indebtedness when due and further exacerbate our losses.

If we are limited in our ability to leverage our assets to the extent we currently anticipate, the returns on these assets may be negatively impacted. We have historically used leverage to increase the size of our portfolio in order to enhance our returns. The capital and credit markets have experienced unprecedented levels of volatility and disruption in recent years that has generally negatively impacted the availability and/or terms of financing from time-to-time. If we are unable to leverage our equity to the extent we currently anticipate due to unavailability or less attractive terms or otherwise, the returns on our portfolio could be diminished, which may limit or eliminate our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We sometimes utilize non-recourse securitizations and recourse structured financings of our investments in residential loans or investment securities to the extent consistent with the maintenance of our REIT qualification and exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act in order to generate cash for funding new investments and/or to leverage existing assets. Some securitizations are treated as financing transactions for GAAP, while others are treated as sales. In a typical securitization, we convey assets to an SPE, the issuer, which then issues one or more classes of notes secured by the assets pursuant to the terms of an indenture. In exchange for conveying assets to the SPE, we may receive the ownership certificate or residual interest in the securitization and we frequently retain a subordinated interest in the securitization. To the extent that we retain the most subordinated economic interests in the issuer, we would continue to be exposed to losses on the assets for as long as those retained interests remained outstanding and therefore able to absorb such losses. Furthermore, our retained interests in a securitization could be less liquid than the underlying assets themselves, and may be subject to U.S. Risk Retention Rules and similar European rules. There can be no assurance that we will be able to access the securitization markets in the future or be able to do so at favorable rates to finance the assets we accumulate as part of our investment strategy. The inability to consummate longer-term financing for the credit sensitive assets in our portfolio could require us to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at inopportune times or prices, which could adversely affect our performance and our ability to grow our business. In addition, under the terms of the securitization or structured financing, we may have limited or no ability to sell, transfer or replace the assets transferred to the SPE, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell the assets opportunistically or during periods when our liquidity is constrained or to refinance the assets. Under the terms of these financings, some of which have terms of up to forty-five years, we agree to receive no cash flows from the assets transferred to the SPE until the debt issued by the SPE has matured or been repaid, which could reduce our liquidity and our cash available for distribution to our stockholders. As part of our financing strategy, we have in the past and may in the future guarantee certain terms or conditions of these financings, including the payment of principal and interest on the debt issued by the SPE, the cash flows for which are typically derived from the assets transferred to the entity. If an SPE defaults on its obligations and we have guaranteed the satisfaction of that obligation, we may be materially adversely affected. In connection with our securitizations, we generally are required to prepare disclosure documentation for investors, including term sheets and offering memoranda, which contain information regarding the securitization generally, the securities being issued, and the assets being securitized. If our disclosure documentation for a securitization is alleged or found to contain material inaccuracies or omissions, we may be liable under federal securities laws, state securities laws or other applicable laws for damages to the investors in such securitization, we may be required to indemnify the underwriters of the securitization or other parties, or we may incur other expenses and costs in connection with disputing these allegations or settling claims. Such liabilities, expenses, and/or losses could be significant. We will typically be required to make representations and warranties in connection with our securitizations regarding, among other things, certain characteristics of the assets being securitized. If any of the representations and warranties that we have made concerning the assets are alleged or found to be inaccurate, we may incur expenses disputing the allegations, and we may be obligated to repurchase certain assets, which may result in losses. Even if we previously obtained representations and warranties from loan originators or other parties from whom we originally acquired the assets, such representations and warranties may not align with those that we have made for the benefit of the securitization, or may otherwise not protect us from losses (e.g., because of a deterioration in the financial condition of the party that provided representations and warranties to us).

When we engage in repurchase transactions, we generally sell RMBS, residential loans or certain other assets to lenders (i.e., repurchase agreement counterparties) and receive cash from the lenders. The lenders are obligated to resell the same asset back to us at the end of the term of the transaction. Because the cash we receive from the lender when we initially sell the asset to the lender is less than the value of that asset (this difference is referred to as the "haircut"), if the lender defaults on its obligation to resell the same asset back to us we would incur a loss on the transaction equal to the amount of the haircut (assuming there was no change in the value of the asset), plus additional costs associated with asserting or enforcing our rights under the repurchase agreement. Certain of the assets that we pledge as collateral are currently subject to significant haircuts. Further, if we default on one of our obligations under a repurchase transaction, the lender can terminate the transaction and cease entering into any other repurchase transactions with us. Moreover, our repurchase agreements frequently contain cross-default provisions, so that if a default occurs under any one agreement, the lenders under our other agreements may also be entitled to declare a default, which could exacerbate our losses and cause a rapid deterioration of our financial condition. Any losses we incur on our repurchase transactions through our default or the default of our counterparty could adversely affect our liquidity and earnings and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Our borrowings under repurchase agreements may qualify for special treatment under the bankruptcy code, giving our lenders the ability to avoid the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code and to take possession of and liquidate our collateral under the repurchase agreements without delay in the event that we file for bankruptcy. Furthermore, the special treatment of repurchase agreements under the bankruptcy code may make it difficult for us to recover our pledged assets in the event that a lender files for bankruptcy. Thus, the use of repurchase agreements exposes our pledged assets to risk in the event of a bankruptcy filing by either a lender or us.

The repurchase agreements that finance a portion of our investment portfolio and certain of our other existing financing arrangements, including our senior unsecured notes, and those we enter into in the future, contain or may contain financial covenants. Negative impacts on our business, including those caused by significant market disruptions or an economic downturn, have and/or may make it more difficult to meet or satisfy these covenants, and we cannot assure you that we will remain in compliance with these covenants in the future. If we fail to meet or satisfy any of these covenants, we would be in default under these agreements, which could result in a cross-default or cross-acceleration under other financing arrangements, and the financing counterparties could elect to declare the repurchase price or principal and interest due and payable (or such amounts may automatically become due and payable), terminate their commitments, require the posting of additional collateral and enforce their respective interests against existing collateral. A default also could significantly limit our financing alternatives, which could cause us to curtail our investment activities or dispose of assets when we otherwise would not choose to do so. As a result, a default on any of our financing agreements could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Subject to compliance with the requirements to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we may engage in certain hedging transactions to limit our exposure to changes in interest rates and credit markets and therefore may expose ourselves to risks associated with such transactions. We may utilize instruments such as interest rate swaps, interest rate swaptions, interest rate caps, Eurodollars and U.S. Treasury futures to seek to hedge the interest rate risk associated with our portfolio. Hedging against a decline in the values of our portfolio positions does not eliminate the possibility of fluctuations in the values of such positions or prevent losses if the values of such positions decline. Such hedging transactions may also limit the opportunity for gain if the values of the portfolio positions should increase. Moreover, at any point in time we may choose not to hedge all or a portion of these 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: - we may fail to correctly assess the degree of correlation between the performance of the instruments used in the hedging strategy and the performance of the assets in the portfolio being hedged;- we 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;- 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; and - 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. The use of derivative instruments is also subject to an increasing number of laws and regulations, including the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations. These laws and regulations are complex, compliance with them may be costly and time consuming, and our failure to comply with any of these laws and regulations could subject us to lawsuits or government actions and damage our reputation. For these and other reasons, our hedging activity may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The U.S. Congress and various state and local legislatures have considered in the past, and in the future may adopt, legislation, which, among other provisions, would permit limited assignee liability for certain violations in the mortgage loan origination process, and would allow judicial modification of loan principal in certain instances. We cannot predict whether or in what form the U.S. 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. Any loan modification program or future legislative or regulatory action, including possible amendments to the bankruptcy laws, which results in the modification of outstanding residential mortgage loans 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, in turn, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

In order to qualify as a REIT, we generally are required each year to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding any net capital gain and without regard to the deduction for dividends paid. To the extent that we distribute at least 90%, but less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, we will be subject to corporate income tax on our undistributed REIT taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which certain distributions paid by us with respect to any calendar year are less than the sum of (i) 85% of our ordinary REIT income for that year, (ii) 95% of our REIT capital gain net income for that year, and (iii) 100% of our undistributed REIT taxable income from prior years. We have made and intend to continue to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the 90% distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the nondeductible excise tax. However, differences in timing between the recognition of REIT taxable income and the actual receipt of cash could require us to sell assets or to borrow funds on a short-term basis to meet the 90% distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the nondeductible excise tax. Certain of our assets may generate substantial mismatches between REIT taxable income and available cash. Such assets could include mortgage-backed securities we hold that have been issued at a discount and require the accrual of taxable income in advance of the receipt of cash. As a result, our taxable income may exceed our cash available for distribution and the requirement to distribute a substantial portion of our net taxable income could cause us to: - sell assets in adverse market conditions;- borrow on unfavorable terms; or - distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt in order to comply with the REIT distribution requirements. Further, our lenders could require us to enter into negative covenants, including restrictions on our ability to distribute funds or to employ leverage, which could inhibit our ability to satisfy the 90% distribution requirement. We may satisfy the 90% distribution test with taxable distributions of our stock or debt securities. Revenue Procedure 2017-45 authorized elective cash/stock dividends to be made by publicly offered REITs (i.e., REITs that are required to file annual and periodic reports with the SEC under the Exchange Act). Pursuant to Revenue Procedure 2017-45, the IRS will treat the distribution of stock pursuant to an elective cash/stock dividend as a distribution of property under Section 301 of the Internal Revenue Code (i.e., a dividend), as long as at least 20% of the total dividend is available in cash and certain other parameters detailed in the Revenue Procedure are satisfied. Although we have no current intention of paying dividends in our own stock, if in the future we choose to pay dividends in our own stock, our stockholders may be required to pay tax in excess of the cash that they receive.

In August 2011, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. from "AAA" to "AA+" due, in part, to concerns surrounding the burgeoning U.S. Government budget deficit. More recently, Fitch Ratings downgraded the U.S.'s long-term credit rating in August 2023 from "AAA" to "AA+" due primarily to expected fiscal deterioration and the erosion of governance that has led to repeated debt limit standoffs. The impact of any further downgrades to the U.S. Government's sovereign credit rating or its perceived creditworthiness could adversely affect the U.S. and global financial markets and economic conditions and would likely impact the credit risk associated with some of the targeted assets in our portfolio or those we may seek to acquire. A downgrade of the U.S. Government's credit rating or a default by the U.S. Government to satisfy its debt obligations likely would create broader financial turmoil and uncertainty, which would weigh heavily on the global banking system and these developments could cause interest rates and borrowing costs to rise and a reduction in the availability of credit, which may negatively impact the value of the assets in our portfolio, our net income, liquidity and our ability to finance our assets on favorable terms.

As of December 31, 2024, 49% of our total investment portfolio was comprised of what we refer to as "credit assets." Despite our efforts to manage credit risk, there are many aspects of credit risk that we cannot control. Our credit policies and procedures may not be successful in limiting future delinquencies, defaults, foreclosures or losses, particularly in relation to declining economic conditions or significant market disruptions, or they may not be cost effective. Our underwriting process, due diligence efforts or hedging strategies, if any, may not be effective or sufficient. Loan servicing companies or our operating partners may not cooperate with our loss mitigation efforts or those efforts may be ineffective. Service providers to securitizations, such as trustees, loan servicers, bond insurance providers, and custodians, as well as our operating partners and their property managers, may not perform in a manner that promotes our interests. Delay of foreclosures could delay resolution and increase ultimate loss severities, as a result. The value of the properties we own interests in or that are collateralizing or underlying the loans, securities or interests we own may decline, particularly if we experience a significant or prolonged economic downturn and/or interest rates rise. The frequency of default and the loss severity on our assets upon default or otherwise may be greater than we anticipate or price into the assets at acquisition. Credit sensitive assets that are partially collateralized by non-real estate assets may have increased risks and severity of loss. If property securing or underlying loans or other investments becomes real estate owned as a result of foreclosure, we bear the risk of not being able to sell the property and recovering our investment and of being exposed to the risks attendant to the ownership of real property.

Many of the assets we own or acquire may be subject to legal, contractual and other restrictions on resale or will otherwise be less liquid than publicly traded securities. For example, certain of our assets may be securitized and are held in a securitization trust and may not be sold or transferred until the note issued by the securitization trust matures or is repaid. Similarly, our joint venture equity and Mezzanine Lending investments may require the consent of our operating partner or a lender to transfer or sell our investment and may also be less attractive to a buyer due to certain contractual provisions. Moreover, because many of our assets are subordinated to more senior securities or loans or depend on the ability of a borrower, tenant or operating partner to meet their contractual obligations, any potential buyer of those assets may request to conduct due diligence on those assets, which may delay the sale or transfer of those assets. In addition, investments in MSRs are highly illiquid and may be subject to numerous restrictions on transfers, including without limitation the receipt of third-party consents. The illiquidity of certain of our assets may make it difficult for us to sell such assets on a timely basis or at all if the need or desire arises. 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, as was the case in March 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant turmoil in our markets. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be relatively limited, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We may seek to increase our capital resources by making offerings of debt or additional offerings of equity securities, including commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes, convertible notes and classes of preferred stock or common stock. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our preferred stock and common stock, with holders of our preferred stock having priority over holders of our common stock. Additional offerings of equity or other securities with an equity component, such as convertible notes, may dilute the holdings of our existing stockholders or reduce the market price of our equity securities or other securities with an equity component, or both. 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 diluting their stock holdings in us.

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our securities is our dividend rate (or expected future dividend rates) as a percentage of our common stock price, relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective investors may demand a higher dividend rate on our shares 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.

We have entered, and intend to continue to enter, into repurchase agreements under which we will nominally sell certain of our investments to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase the sold investments. 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 owner of the investments that are the subject of any such agreement notwithstanding that such agreement may transfer record ownership of such investments 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 investments during the term of the repurchase agreement, in which case our ability to continue to qualify as a REIT could be adversely affected.