ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Set forth below are the risks that we believe are material to stockholders. You should carefully consider the following risk factors identified in or incorporated by reference into any other documents filed by us with the SEC in evaluating our company and our business. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our stock could decline. The risk factors described below are not the only risks that may affect us. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us also may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Risks Related to Our Investment Strategies and Our Businesses

We may not be able to operate our businesses successfully or generate sufficient revenue to make or sustain distributions to our stockholders.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to operate our businesses successfully or implement our operating policies and strategies. Our Manager may not be able to successfully execute our investment, financing and hedging strategies as described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which could result in a loss of some or all of your investment. The results of our operations depend on several factors, including the availability of opportunities for the acquisition of target assets, the level and volatility of interest rates, the availability of adequate short and long-term financing, conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions. Our revenues will depend, in large part, on our ability to acquire assets at favorable spreads over our borrowing costs. If we are unable to acquire assets that generate favorable spreads, our results of operations may be adversely affected, which could adversely affect our ability to make or sustain distributions to our stockholders.

Our Manager has limited experience acquiring and securitizing mortgage loans.

As a significant component of our business strategy, we acquire and securitize residential mortgage loans. Such loans are subject to many of the same risks as those related to our other target assets, including risks related to changes in interest rates, economic factors in general, prepayment speeds, default risks and risks related to hedging strategies. Our Manager, however, has limited experience in acquiring mortgage loans in the secondary market and completing securitization transactions; we completed our first securitization in October 2014 and our second in December 2014. While our Manager has hired individuals with experience building mortgage loan conduit and securitization businesses and, in combination with the use of experienced outside advisors and servicers, we believe that we have sufficient experience to conduct our securitization programs, these are new business activities for us and there can be no assurance that we will be able to implement our securitization strategy successfully.

If we fail to develop, enhance and implement strategies to adapt to changing conditions in the mortgage industry and capital markets, our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders may be adversely affected.

The manner in which we compete and the products for which we compete are affected by changing conditions, which can take the form of trends or sudden changes in our industry, regulatory environment, changes in the role of GSEs, changes in the role of credit rating agencies or their rating criteria or process, or the U.S. economy more generally. If we do not effectively respond to these changes, or if our strategies to respond to these changes are not successful, our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders may be adversely affected.

We may not realize gains or income from our assets.

We seek to generate current income and capital appreciation for our stockholders. However, the assets that we acquire may not appreciate in value and, in fact, may decline in value, and the securities that we acquire may experience defaults of interest and/or principal payments. Accordingly, we may not be able to realize gains or income from our assets. Any gains that we do realize may not be sufficient to offset other losses that we experience.

We may continue to change our target assets, investment or financing strategies and other operational policies without stockholder consent, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We may continue to change any of our strategies, policies or procedures with respect to investments, acquisitions, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization, distributions, financing strategy and leverage at any time without the consent of our stockholders, which could result in an investment portfolio with a different, and possibly greater, risk profile. A change in our target assets, investment strategy or guidelines, financing strategy or other operational policies may increase our exposure to interest rate risk, default risk and real estate market fluctuations. Furthermore, a change in our asset allocation could result in our making investments in asset categories different from those described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, our charter provides that our board of directors may revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without approval of our stockholders, if it determines that it is no longer in our best interests to maintain our REIT qualification. These changes could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our portfolio of assets may be concentrated in terms of credit risk.

Although as a general policy we seek to acquire and hold a diverse portfolio of assets, we are not required to observe specific diversification criteria, except as may be set forth in the investment guidelines adopted by our board of directors. Therefore, our asset portfolio may at times be concentrated in certain property types that are subject to higher risk of foreclosure or secured by properties concentrated in a limited number of geographic locations. To the extent that our portfolio is concentrated in any one region or type of security, downturns relating generally to such region or type of security may result in defaults on a number of our assets within a short time period, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Our portfolio may contain other concentrations of risk, and we may fail to identify, detect or hedge against those risks, resulting in large or unexpected losses. Lack of diversification can increase the correlation of non-performance and foreclosure risks among our investments.

A significant portion of our Non-Agency RMBS is secured by properties in a small number of geographic areas and may be disproportionately affected by economic or housing downturns, natural disasters, terrorist events, adverse climate changes or other adverse events specific to those markets.

A significant number of the mortgages underlying our Non-Agency RMBS are concentrated in certain geographic areas. For example, we have significantly higher exposure in California, Massachusetts and Washington (See Part II, Item 7A “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K). Certain markets within these states (particularly California) experienced significant decreases in residential home values during the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and the years thereafter. Any event that adversely affects the economy or real estate market in any of these states could have a disproportionately adverse effect on our Non-Agency RMBS. In general, any material decline in the economy or significant problems in a particular real estate market would likely cause a decline in the value of residential properties securing the mortgages in that market, thereby increasing the risk of delinquency, default and foreclosure of re-performing loans and the loans underlying our Non-Agency RMBS. This could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our credit loss experience on our Non-Agency RMBS in the affected market if higher-than-expected rates of default and/or higher-than-expected loss severities on our re-performing loan investments or the mortgages underlying our Non-Agency RMBS were to occur.

The occurrence of a natural disaster (such as an earthquake, tornado, hurricane or a flood), terrorist attack or a significant adverse climate change may cause a sudden decrease in the value of real estate in the area or areas affected and would likely reduce the value of the properties securing the mortgages collateralizing our Non-Agency RMBS. Because certain natural disasters are not typically covered by the standard hazard insurance policies maintained by borrowers, the affected borrowers may have to pay for any repairs themselves. Borrowers may decide not to repair their property or may stop paying their mortgages under those circumstances. This would likely cause defaults and credit loss severities to increase.

Changes in governmental laws and regulations, fiscal policies, property taxes and zoning ordinances can also have a negative impact on property values, which could result in borrowers’ deciding to stop paying their mortgages. This circumstance could cause credit loss severities to increase, thereby adversely impacting our results of operations.

Lack of diversification in the number of assets we acquire would increase our dependence on relatively few individual assets.

Our management objectives and policies do not place a limit on the size of the amount of capital used to support, or the exposure to (by any other measure), any individual asset or any group of assets with similar characteristics or risks. In addition, because we are a small company, we may be unable to sufficiently deploy capital into a number of assets or asset groups. As a result, our portfolio may be concentrated in a small number of assets or may be otherwise undiversified, increasing the risk of loss and the magnitude of potential losses to us and our stockholders if one or more of these assets perform poorly.

Our investments may continue to include subordinated tranches of RMBS, which are subordinate in right of payment to more senior securities.

Our investments may continue to include subordinated tranches of RMBS, which are subordinated classes of securities in a structure of securities collateralized by a pool of mortgage loans and, accordingly, are the first or among the first to bear the loss upon a restructuring or liquidation of the underlying collateral and the last to receive payment of interest and principal. Additionally, estimated fair values of these subordinated interests tend to be more sensitive to changes in economic conditions than more senior securities. As a result, such subordinated interests generally are not actively traded and may not provide holders thereof with liquid investments.

We invest in Multi-Family MBS that are subordinate to more senior securities issued by the applicable securitization, which entails certain risks.

We purchase principal-only Multi-Family MBS that represent the first loss tranche of a multi-family mortgage loan securitization. These first loss principal only securities are subject to the first risk of loss if any losses are realized on the underlying mortgage loans in the securitization. We also purchase interest only securities issued by multi-family mortgage loan securitizations. However, these interest only Multi-Family MBS typically only receive payments of interest to the extent that there are funds available in the securitization to make the payments. Multi-Family MBS generally entitle the holders thereof to receive payments that depend primarily on the cash flow from a specified pool of multi-family mortgage loans. Consequently, first loss principal only Multi-Family MBS, will be adversely affected by payment defaults, delinquencies and losses on the underlying multi-family mortgage loans, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows and results of operations.

Investments in non-investment grade MBS may be illiquid, may have a higher risk of default and may not produce current returns.

We invest in MBS that are non-investment grade or unrated, which means that major rating agencies rate them below the top four investment-grade rating categories (i.e., “AAA” through “BBB”) or do not provide any rating for such MBS. Non-investment grade MBS securities tend to be less liquid, may have a higher risk of default and may be more difficult to value than investment grade bonds. Recessions or poor economic or pricing conditions in the markets associated with MBS may cause defaults or losses on loans underlying such securities. Non-investment grade securities are considered speculative, and their capacity to pay principal and interest in accordance with the terms of their issue is not certain.

Non-Agency MBS and Multi-Family MBS have more price sensitivity than Agency MBS which can cause greater fluctuations in our book value. In addition, we finance our Non-Agency MBS and Multi-Family MBS with a limited number of repurchase agreement lenders. A withdrawal by one or more of these lenders could force us to sell our Non-Agency MBS and Multi-Family MBS at potentially distressed prices which could impact our profitability. It could also cause other lenders to withdraw financing for our Agency MBS.

Non-Agency MBS and Multi-Family MBS historically have been more price sensitive than Agency MBS which limits the number of lenders willing to provide repurchase agreement financing for these securities. In a period of price volatility, we may be subject to margin calls which could adversely impact our liquidity. These margin calls could result from price changes in Non-Agency MBS or Multi-Family MBS or from higher margin requirements by the lender in order to provide additional collateral as a result of the price volatility. In addition, lenders may no longer offer financing of Non-Agency MBS or Multi-Family MBS which could force us to sell some or all of these investments if we could not find replacement financing. In either instance we may be required to sell assets which could negatively impact our profitability. In an extreme situation, if we lost significant amounts of financing or if we received a significant amount of margin calls on our Non-Agency MBS or Multi-Family MBS, other lenders may also seek to reduce their financing of our Agency MBS. In such a case we would likely have to sell additional investments to maintain our liquidity.

We invest in Multi-Family MBS which is secured by income producing properties. Such loans are typically made to single-asset entities, and the repayment of the loan is dependent principally on the net operating income from performance and value of the underlying property. The volatility of income performance results and property values may adversely affect our Multi-Family MBS.

Our Multi-Family MBS is secured by multi-family property and is subject to risks of delinquency, foreclosure and loss. Commercial mortgage loans generally have a higher principal balance and the ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent upon the successful operation of the property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Net operating income of an income-producing property can be affected by, among other things: tenant mix, success of tenant businesses, property management decisions, property location and condition, competition from comparable types of properties, changes in laws that increase operating expenses or limit rents that may be charged, any need to address environmental contamination at the property, changes in national, regional or local economic conditions and/or specific industry segments, declines in regional or local real estate values and declines in regional or local rental or occupancy rates, increases in interest rates, real estate tax rates and other operating expenses, changes in governmental rules, regulations and fiscal policies, including environmental legislation, and acts of God, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances.

Multi-family property values and net operating income derived from them are subject to volatility and may be affected adversely by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, national, regional and local economic conditions; local real estate conditions; changes or continued weakness in specific industry segments; perceptions by prospective tenants, retailers and shoppers of the safety, convenience, services and attractiveness of the property; the willingness and ability of the property’s owner to provide capable management and adequate maintenance; construction quality, age and design; demographic factors; retroactive changes to building or similar codes; and increases in operating expenses (such as energy costs).

Declines in the borrowers’ net operating income and/or declines in property values of collateral securing commercial mortgage loans could result in defaults on such loans, declines in our book value from reduced earnings and/or reductions to the market value of the investment.

Current market conditions for our target assets have been and may continue to be significantly influenced by U.S. Government and U.S. Federal Reserve intervention and attractive opportunities for investment in our target assets may not continue, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

In response to the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the U.S. Government and U.S. Federal Reserve, or the Fed, have taken unprecedented actions to stabilize the market for mortgage-related investments along with the broader economy. Such intervention has included maintenance of a near-zero target of the federal funds rate by the U.S. Federal Reserve, or the Fed, U.S. Government programs, such as the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, and the Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP. On September 13, 2012, the Fed announced a third round of quantitative easing, or QE3, which was an open-ended program designed to expand the its’ holdings of long-term securities by purchasing an additional $40 billion of Agency RMBS per month until key economic indicators, such as the unemployment rate, showed signs of improvement. In December 2012, the Fed announced that it would begin buying $45 billion of long-term Treasury bonds each month. Beginning in early 2014, the Fed gradually reduced its purchases of both Agency RMBS and Treasury bonds, and in October 2014 ended its purchase program under its third round of quantitative easing, or QE3 (although it is still reinvesting principal and interest it receives on the Agency RMBS and U.S. Treasuries held in its portfolio).

It is unclear what effect, if any, the absence of the Fed’s monthly purchases, other than its reinvestment of principal and interest payments it receives for Agency RMBS in its portfolio, will have on the value of the Agency RMBS in which we invest. However, it is possible that the market for such securities, the price of such securities and, as a result, our book value and/or net interest margin could be negatively affected.

Further, the mortgage industry has and continues to undergo fundamental changes, such as the conservatorship and possible future changes in the nature of participation in the mortgage market by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While we believe that prices and yields for many of our target assets have been more favorable than in the past, and the yield curve environment for a leveraged Agency portfolio is currently very favorable, and that there are attractive opportunities for investment across our target asset classes, there is no way of knowing what impact government intervention or any future actions by the Fed will have on the prices and liquidity of Agency RMBS or other assets in which we may invest. The prices and yields of our target assets may be adversely affected, and could be subject to significant volatility upon changes, or perceived future changes, to such policies. Further, such prices and yields may not reflect the underlying value of our target assets and may be significantly inflated due to these policies and the uncertainty of future changes to the mortgage industry. If current market conditions do not continue, and we are unable to structure or reposition our investment portfolio accordingly, there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Mortgage loan modification and refinancing programs and future legislative action may adversely affect the supply of, value of, and our returns on, our target assets.

In addition, in recent years, the U.S. Government, through the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Federal Housing Administration, or FHA, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, has implemented a number of federal programs designed to assist homeowners or reduce the number of properties going into foreclosure or going into non-performing status, including the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, which provides homeowners with assistance in avoiding residential mortgage loan foreclosures, the Hope for Homeowners Program, or H4H Program, which allows certain distressed borrowers to refinance their mortgages into FHA-insured loans in order to avoid residential mortgage loan foreclosures, and the Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, which allows Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac borrowers who are current on their mortgage payments to refinance and reduce their monthly mortgage payments at loan-to-value ratios up to 125% (and, in some cases, above 125%) without new mortgage insurance. HAMP, the H4H Program, HARP and other loss mitigation programs may involve, among other things, the modification of mortgage loans to reduce the principal amount of the loans (through forbearance and/or forgiveness) and/or the rate of interest payable on the loans, or the extension of payment terms of the loans.

Especially with Non-Agency RMBS, a significant number of loan modifications with respect to a given security, including, but not limited to, those related to principal forgiveness and coupon reduction, could result in increased prepayment rates and thereby negatively impact the realized yields and cash flows on such securities. These loan modification programs, future legislative or regulatory actions, including possible amendments to the bankruptcy laws that result in the modification of outstanding residential mortgage loans, as well as 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, Agency RMBS and other mortgage-related investments that we may purchase.

Other governmental actions may affect our business by hindering the pace of foreclosures. Over the past few years, there has been a backlog of foreclosures in certain jurisdictions, due to a combination of volume constraints and legal actions, including those brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, HUD, State Attorneys General, the office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Reserve Board against mortgage servicers alleging wrongful foreclosure practices. Legal claims brought or threatened by the DOJ, HUD, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or the CFPB, and State Attorneys General against residential mortgage servicers have produced large settlements. A portion of the funds from these settlements are directed to homeowners seeking to avoid foreclosure through mortgage modifications, and servicers are required to adopt specified measures to reduce mortgage obligations in certain situations. It is expected that the settlements will help many homeowners avoid foreclosures that would otherwise have occurred in the near-term. It is also possible that other residential mortgage servicers will agree to similar settlements. These developments will reduce the number of homes in the process of foreclosure and decrease the supply of properties and assets that meet our investment criteria.

Actions of the U.S. Government, including the U.S. Congress, U.S. Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury Department and other governmental and regulatory bodies, to stabilize or reform the financial markets, or market responses to those actions, may not achieve the intended effect and may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

In response to the financial issues affecting the banking system and financial markets and going concern threats to commercial banks, investment banks and other financial institutions, Congress, the Administration and various regulatory agencies have taken numerous actions intended to stabilize and restructure the financial system. There can be no assurance as to any beneficial impact that such actions or related future actions of the U.S. Government have had or will have on the financial markets. To the extent the markets do not respond favorably to any such actions by the U.S. Government or such actions do not function as intended, there may be broad adverse market implications, and our business may not receive the anticipated positive impact from the legislation.

In July 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, in part to impose significant investment restrictions and capital requirements on banking entities and other organizations that are significant to U.S. financial markets. In part, it requires the retention of a portion of the credit risk inherent in the pool of securitized assets and by imposing additional registration and disclosure requirements. Although certain of the new requirements and restrictions exempt Agency RMBS, other government issued or guaranteed securities, or other securities, the Dodd-Frank Act imposes significant regulatory restrictions on the origination and securitization of residential mortgage loans, which will affect Non-Agency RMBS.

Furthermore, the new regulation of over-the-counter derivatives and the inclusion of swaps as an investment that can cause a pooled investment vehicle to be a commodity pool would require us to register with and be regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or the CFTC, as a commodity pool operator, or CPO, unless an exemption or other relief is available. Our Manager will rely for relief from registration as a CPO on a no-action letter issued on December 7, 2012 (the “No Action Letter”) by the CFTC staff that is applicable to CPOs of mortgage REITs, subject to complying with certain criteria. Further, advisors to commodity pools, which could potentially include our Manager, are required to register as commodity trading advisors, or CTAs, unless exemptive, no-action or similar relief is available. We believe such relief is available to our Manager on the basis of the No-Action Letter and existing regulations of the CFTC. If in the future our Manager does not meet the conditions set forth in the No-Action Letter for relief from registration as a CPO, the relief provided by the No-Action letter from registration as a CPO becomes unavailable for any other reason, or our belief regarding the availability of relief from registration as a CTA proves incorrect, and we or our Manager are unable to rely upon or obtain other exemptions from registration as a CPO or CTA, we may be required to reduce or eliminate our use of interest rate swaps or vary the manner in which we deploy interest rate swaps in our business, the interest-rate risk associated with our investments may increase, our investment performance may be adversely affected or the cost associated with employing other kinds of hedges against interest rate fluctuations could be higher. Alternatively, our Manager may be required to register as a CPO. If our Manager is required to and does register as a CPO, we nevertheless expect it to remain exempt from registration as a CTA with the CFTC because its advisory activities would relate only to its activities as CPO of the company. The Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations impose various requirements on CPOs and CTAs, including record keeping, reporting, operational and marketing requirements, disclosure obligations and prohibitions on fraudulent activities. Complying with these requirements could increase our expenses and negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. It may also be difficult to comply with the reporting and disclosure requirements with respect to the kinds of products that we offer.

While the full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act cannot be assessed until all implementing regulations are released, the Dodd-Frank Act’s extensive requirements have had a significant effect on the financial markets, and may affect the availability or terms of financing from our lender counterparties, the availability or terms of swaps and swaptions into which we enter, and the availability or terms of mortgage-backed securities, both of which may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Even if certain of the new statutes and regulations imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act are not directly applicable to us, they may still increase our costs of entering into transactions with the parties to whom the requirements are directly applicable. Moreover, new exchange-trading and trade reporting requirements may lead to reductions in the liquidity of derivative transactions, causing higher pricing or reduced availability of derivatives, or the reduction of arbitrage opportunities for us, which could adversely affect the performance of certain of our hedging strategies. Importantly, many key aspects of the changes imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act will be established by various regulatory bodies and other groups over the next several years. As a result, we do not know how significantly the Dodd-Frank Act will affect us. It is possible that the Dodd-Frank Act could, among other things, increase our costs of operating as a public company, impose restrictions on our ability to securitize assets and reduce our investment returns on securitized assets.

Certain actions by the U.S. Federal Reserve could cause a flattening of the yield curve, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

On December 16, 2015, the Fed increased its target range for the federal funds rate to 1/4 to 1/2 percent, and indicated that it would likely contemplate additional rate increases in 2016 and beyond. While the timing of the expected increases in short-term rates remains data dependent, any resultant flattening in the yield curve could result in increased prepayment rates due to lower long-term interest rates and a narrowing of our net interest margin, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related efforts, along with any changes in laws and regulations affecting the relationship between these agencies and the U.S. Government, may adversely affect our business.

The payments of principal and interest we receive on our Agency RMBS, which depend directly upon payments on the mortgages underlying such securities, are guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSEs, but their guarantees are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Ginnie Mae is part of a U.S. Government agency, and its guarantees are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

In response to general market instability and, more specifically, the financial conditions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in July 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, or HERA, established the FHFA as the new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In September 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department, the FHFA and the U.S. Federal Reserve announced a comprehensive action plan to help stabilize the financial markets, support the availability of mortgage financing and protect taxpayers. Under this plan, among other things, the FHFA was appointed as conservator of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, allowing the FHFA to control the actions of the two GSEs, without forcing them to liquidate, which would be the case under receivership. Importantly, the primary focus of the plan was to increase the availability of mortgage financing by allowing these GSEs to continue to grow their guarantee business without limit, while limiting the size of their retained mortgage and agency security portfolios and requiring that these portfolios be reduced over time.

Although the U.S. Government has committed to support the positive net worth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there can be no assurance that these actions will be adequate for their needs. These uncertainties lead to questions about the availability of, and trading market for, Agency RMBS. Despite the steps taken by the U.S. Government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could default on their guarantee obligations, which would adversely affect the value of our Agency RMBS. Accordingly, if these government actions are inadequate and the GSEs continue to suffer losses or cease to exist, our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected.

In addition, the problems faced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac resulting in their being placed into federal conservatorship and receiving significant U.S. Government support have sparked serious debate among federal policy makers regarding the continued role of the U.S. Government in providing liquidity for mortgage loans. The future roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be significantly reduced and the nature of their guarantee obligations could be considerably limited relative to historical measurements. Any such changes to the nature of their guarantee obligations could redefine what constitutes an agency security and could have broad adverse implications for the market and our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. If Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac were eliminated, or their structures were to change radically (i.e., limitation or removal of the guarantee obligation), or their market share reduced because of required price increases or lower limits on the loans they can guarantee, we could be unable to acquire additional Agency RMBS and our existing Agency RMBS could be adversely impacted.

We could be negatively affected in a number of ways depending on the manner in which related events unfold for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We rely on our Agency RMBS (as well as Non-Agency RMBS) as collateral for our financings under our repurchase agreements. Any decline in their value, or perceived market uncertainty about their value, would make it more difficult for us to obtain financing on our Agency RMBS on acceptable terms or at all, or to maintain our compliance with the terms of any financing transactions. Further, the current support provided by the U.S. Treasury Department to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and any additional support it may provide in the future, could have the effect of lowering the interest rates we expect to receive from Agency RMBS, thereby tightening the spread between the interest we earn on our Agency RMBS and the cost of financing those assets. A reduction in the supply of Agency RMBS could also negatively affect the pricing of Agency RMBS by reducing the spread between the interest we earn on our investment portfolio of Agency RMBS and our cost of financing that portfolio.

As indicated above, recent legislation has changed the relationship between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the U.S. Government. Future legislation could further change the relationship between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the U.S. Government, and could also nationalize, privatize or eliminate such entities entirely. Any law affecting these GSEs may create market uncertainty and have the effect of reducing the actual or perceived credit quality of securities issued or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. As a result, such laws could increase the risk of loss on our investments in Agency RMBS guaranteed by Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac. It also is possible that such laws could adversely impact the market for such securities and spreads at which they trade. All of the foregoing could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Separate legislation has been introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress, which would, among other things, revoke the charters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we could be adversely affected if these proposed laws were enacted.

Bills calling for the revocation of the charters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and seeking to increase the opportunities for private capital to participate in, and consequently bear the risk of loss in connection with, government- guaranteed MBS were introduced during 2013 in the 113th Congress and enjoyed bi-partisan support. None of the bills were enacted yet at the beginning of the 114th Congress several similar bills have been introduced both in the House and the Senate. It is too early in the legislative process to determine which bills, or provisions thereof, if any, may be enacted or even brought to the floor of Congress. If the charters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were revoked, it is unclear what effect, if any, this would have on the value of our Agency RMBS guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is also possible that the above-referenced proposed legislation, if made law, could adversely impact the market for securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government and the spreads at which they trade. The foregoing could adversely affect the pricing, supply, liquidity and value of our target assets and otherwise adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition.

The increasing number of proposed U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations may affect certain mortgage-related assets in which we intend to invest and could increase our cost of doing business.

Legislation has been considered, proposed or adopted which, among other provisions, could hinder the ability of a servicer to foreclose promptly on defaulted mortgage loans or would permit limited assignee liability for certain violations in the mortgage loan origination process. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act created the CFPB, which supervises consumer financial services companies (including bank and non-bank mortgage lenders and mortgage servicers) and enforces U.S. federal consumer protection laws as they apply to banks, credit unions and other financial services companies, including mortgage servicers, and which has issued many regulations regarding mortgage origination and servicing. These regulations provide for special remedies in favor of consumer mortgage borrowers, particularly upon default and foreclosure. It remains uncertain whether any of these measures will have a significant impact on foreclosure volumes or what the timing of that impact would be. If foreclosure volumes were to decline significantly, we may experience difficulty in finding target assets at attractive prices, which will adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We cannot predict whether or in what form the U.S. Congress, the various state and local legislatures or the various federal, state or local regulatory agencies may enact legislation affecting our business. We will evaluate the potential impact of any initiatives which, if enacted, could affect our practices and results of operations. We are unable to predict whether U.S. federal, state or local authorities will enact laws, rules or regulations that will require changes in our practices in the future, and any such changes could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, as well as an independent deficiency in our disclosure controls and procedures, and we may identify additional material weaknesses in internal controls or other significant control deficiencies in the future. If we fail to remediate the identified material weakness and disclosure control deficiency, or if we otherwise fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results, detect or prevent fraud, or file our periodic reports in a timely manner, which may, among other adverse consequences, cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information and lead to a decline in our stock price. In addition, because of our status as an emerging growth company, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting until after December 31, 2018.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or SOX, requires, among other things, ongoing review of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. Section 404 of SOX requires us to include a management report on our internal control over financial reporting in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, which report must include management’s assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, we are required, on a quarterly and annual basis, to disclose the conclusions of our principal executive and principal financial officer on the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures.

In connection with the preparation of our financial statements for inclusion in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, or our 2015 10-K, our Audit Committee determined that we had a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. A “material weakness” is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Our Audit Committee also determined that the identified material weakness (described below) required restatement of our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, which restatements are included herein for the quarters ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 (as described in detail in Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements in Part IV hereof).

The material weakness consisted of the incorrect reporting of unrealized losses on two Non-Agency RMBS IOs for which we had elected the fair value option. Such losses were incorrectly reported through other comprehensive income (OCI) instead of through our statements of operations. The error was identified as the result of ongoing review of financial statement data, and resulted from the Company’s failure to timely notify its third party accounting services provider of the discrepancy between the reporting generated and that required by GAAP. The first IO was acquired in the Oaks Mortgage Trust Series 2015-1 transaction completed in April 2015, and the second IO was acquired in the Oaks Mortgage Trust Series 2015-2 transaction completed in November 2015.

As a consequence of the current material weakness, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting, and consequently our disclosure controls and procedures, were not effective as of December 31, 2015, nor were they effective (notwithstanding management’s prior conclusions to the contrary) for the quarters ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015. In addition, we inadvertently omitted financial statements for our pre-IPO year from May 16, 2012 (date of commencement) to December 31, 2012 from our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, or our 2014 10-K. Although it was the initial determination of our management that such omission was an immaterial deficiency in our disclosure controls and procedures, after consultation with the Staff of the SEC on this matter, our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer concluded that (notwithstanding their prior conclusions to the contrary) such omission rendered our disclosure controls and procedures ineffective for the year ended December 31, 2014, and for all quarterly periods during 2015 (this revised conclusion of ineffective disclosure controls and procedures for all quarters of 2015 would apply even if the material weakness which impacted the second and third quarters of 2015, as described above, did not exist). Management’s revised conclusions with respect to our disclosure controls and procedures (for the year ended December 31, 2014, and all quarterly periods during 2015), are set forth in Item 9A herein.

We are actively engaged in implementing a remediation plan designed to address the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, and the deficiencies in our disclosure controls and procedures described above, and to improve the design of such controls. We have instituted additional procedures to ensure that any fair value option security cannot be booked by our third party accounting services provider without affirmative income recognition identification, including the appropriate accounting treatment, from the Company. We have also contracted with a nationally recognized accounting systems and services provider to provide us with a more robust accounting system that will improve the effectiveness of correct accounting treatment for transactions we enter into. We are also in the process, with the assistance of an internationally recognized accounting firm, of formalizing enhanced written policies and procedures appropriate to the design and operation of controls and procedures applicable to the new system. Additionally, we have utilized the services of this same accounting firm to enhance our review of disclosure checklists for future filings. However, a control system, no matter how well designed, can only provide reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. In addition, we cannot assure you that our remedial measures will be sufficient to eliminate the material weakness and disclosure controls and procedures deficiencies that have been identified, or to prevent future material weaknesses or significant deficiencies from occurring. We also cannot assure you that we have identified all of our existing material weaknesses and disclosure controls and procedures deficiencies.

We had earlier implemented measures then-designed to remediate a previous material weakness and two significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting identified by our independent registered public accounting firm prior to the filing of our registration statement on Form S-11 for our IPO, and in connection with the preparation of our earlier financial statements as of and for the period from May 16, 2012 (commencement of operations) to July 31, 2012. The earlier material weakness was fully remediated at December 31, 2013 and the two previous significant deficiencies were fully remediated by December 31, 2014.

Our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting until our Annual Report on Form 10-K following the date on which we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) December 31, 2018, (b) the last day of any fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.0 billion, or (c) the last day of any fiscal year in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30th, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period. For as long as we remain an emerging growth company, we intend to take advantage of the exemption permitting us not to comply with the independent registered public accounting firm attestation requirement. At such time that an attestation is required, however, our independent registered public accounting firm may issue a report that is qualified if it is not satisfied with our controls or the level at which our controls are documented, designed, operated or reviewed, or if it interprets the relevant requirements differently from us. Material weaknesses and significant deficiencies may be identified during the audit process or at other times. During the course of the evaluation, documentation or attestation, we or our independent registered public accounting firm may identify weaknesses and deficiencies that we may not be able to remedy in time to meet the deadline imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for compliance with Section 404, or at all.

If our remedial measures are insufficient, or if additional material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting and/or our disclosure controls and procedures are discovered or occur in the future, our consolidated financial statements may contain material misstatements, we may not be able to detect or prevent fraud, we may be unable to file our periodic reports in a timely manner, and/or we could be required to restate our financial results, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations or financial condition, restrict our ability to access the capital markets, require us to expend significant resources to correct the weaknesses or deficiencies, subject us to fines, penalties, judgments, investigations and/or sanctions by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, harm our reputation or otherwise cause a decline in investor confidence, and/or negatively impact the trading price of our common stock.

We depend on our accounting services provider for assistance with the preparation of our financial statements, access to appropriate accounting technology and assistance with portfolio valuation.  

Pursuant to our agreement with Stone Coast Fund Services LLC, or Stone Coast, Stone Coast currently provides a monthly calculation of our net asset value, maintains our general ledger and all related accounting records, reconciles all broker and custodial statements we routinely receive, provides us with monthly portfolio, cash and position reports, assists us with portfolio valuations, prepares draft quarterly financial statements for our review and provides us with access to data and technology services to facilitate the preparation of our annual financial statements.  We have determined to terminate our agreement with Stone Coast in accordance with its terms  and to hire SS&C Technologies, Inc., or SS&C., as a successor to Stone Coast.  We have begun the transition process and anticipate that SS&C will begin providing such services in lieu of Stone Coast during  the second quarter of 2016. Our agreement with SS&C is terminable by us with cause during the first three years and thereafter without cause upon 90 days notice by either party. If our agreement with SS&C were to be terminated or if for any reason we encountered a problem with the transition from Stone Coast to SS&C and no suitable replacement can be timely engaged, we may not be able to timely and accurately prepare our financial statements.

We finance the residential mortgage loans we acquire, which subjects us to additional risk under short-term financing agreements with lenders.

We finance the residential mortgage loans that we acquire prior to any planned securitization and, as a result, we are subject to additional risks under short-term financing agreements, such as repurchase agreements and warehouse facilities, with third party lenders. Repurchase agreements typically specify in detail the characteristics of eligible mortgages which may be financed under the repurchase agreements, and those specified characteristics are different than those contained in the repurchase facilities we use to finance our other target assets. Many of the events which could cause the mortgage loans to become ineligible are not within our control. If the mortgage loans we acquire become ineligible to be financed under these facilities, we would be subject to less favorable advance rates, or haircuts, under the repurchase facilities, or we may be required to repurchase the ineligible mortgages on short notice. Additionally, similar to the repurchase agreements we use to finance our RMBS, if the fair value of the mortgage loans we pledge as collateral declines, we would be required to increase the amount of collateral pledged to secure the debt or repay all of a portion of the debt.

The short-term financing agreements we use to finance our residential mortgage loans may not be available to us when needed, including in circumstances where a line of credit had previously been committed to us. In addition, the terms and conditions of any such agreements may be unfavorable to us or impose restrictive covenants that could limit our business and operations or the violation of which could lead to losses and inhibit our ability to borrow in the future. If we are unable to finance the mortgage loans we acquire, we will have to use our capital to hold these mortgage loans, which will reduce the capital available to invest in our other target assets such as Agency RMBS and Non-Agency RMBS.

We may not be able to continuing acquiring residential mortgage loans.

The success of our securitization business depends upon sourcing a large volume of desirable residential mortgage loans. We may be unable to do so for many reasons. We may be unable to locate originators that are able or willing to originate mortgage loans that meet our standards and we may not be able to source acquisitions of bulk pools of mortgage loans from originators, banks and other sellers, in either case, on terms and conditions favorable to us. Additionally, competition for mortgage loans may drive down supply or drive up prices, making it uneconomical to purchase the loans. General economic factors, such as recession, declining home values, unemployment and high interest rates, may limit the supply of available loans. As a result, we may incur additional costs to acquire a sufficient volume of mortgage loans or be unable to acquire mortgage loans at a reasonable price. If we cannot source an adequate volume of desirable loans, our securitization business may be unprofitable, and we may hold individual loans for long periods, increasing our exposure to the credit of the borrowers and requiring capital that might be better used elsewhere in our business.

We are exposed to credit risk on the residential mortgage loans we acquire and securitize and we may not be able to successfully manage those risks and mitigate our losses.

Despite our efforts to manage credit risk related to the residential mortgage loans we acquire and securitize, there are many aspects of credit risk that we cannot control. Our due diligence, underwriting, quality control and loss mitigation policies and procedures may not be effective at preventing or limiting borrower delinquencies and defaults, and the loan servicing companies that service the mortgages loans may not cooperate with our loss mitigation policies or their efforts may be ineffective. Our underwriting and due diligence efforts may not reveal matters that could lead to losses. If our underwriting process is not adequate, and we fail to detect certain loan defects or compliance issues related to origination or servicing, we may incur losses. We could also incur losses if a counterparty that sold us a loan is unwilling or unable (e.g., due to its financial condition) to repurchase that loan or asset or pay damages to us if we determine subsequent to purchase that one or more of the representations or warranties made to us in connection with the sale was inaccurate. Additionally, the third party service providers to the securitizations (i.e., trustees, servicers, custodians and others) may not perform in a manner that is consistent with our interests. As a result, we could incur losses that would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We may be subject to repurchase risk in connection with our securitization of residential mortgage loans and this could adversely affect our ability to operate a profitable securitization program.

When engaging in securitization transactions, we are required to make representations and warranties to the securitization entities that purchase the residential mortgage loans from us regarding, among other things, certain characteristics of those mortgage loans. If our representations and warranties are inaccurate, we may be obligated to repurchase certain mortgage loans, which may result in a loss. Even if we obtain representations and warranties from the loan originator or other parties from whom we acquired the mortgage loans, they may not correspond with the representations and warranties we make or may otherwise not protect us from losses. For example, if representations and warranties we obtain from those parties do not exactly align with the representations and warranties we make, or if the representations and warranties made to us are not enforceable or if we cannot collect damages for a breach (e.g., due to the financial condition of the party that made the representation or warranty to us), we may incur losses.

Most States require licenses to purchase, hold, enforce or sell residential mortgage loans in the secondary market and failure to obtain or maintain such licenses in a timely manner or at all may adversely affect our ability to acquire mortgage loans and successfully operate our securitization program.

Most States require licenses to hold, enforce or sell residential mortgage loans in the secondary market. 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 on an ongoing basis. Our failure to maintain required licenses may expose us to penalties or other claims and may affect our ability to acquire an adequate and desirable supply of mortgage loans to conduct our securitization program and, as a result, could harm our business.

Market conditions and other factors may affect our ability to securitize residential mortgage loans, which could increase our financing costs and adversely affect our results of operations and ability to make distributions.

Our ability to securitize residential mortgage loans will be affected by a number of factors, including:

In recent years, the asset-backed securitization markets have experienced unprecedented disruptions, and securitization volumes have decreased sharply. Recent conditions in the securitization markets include reduced liquidity, increased risk premiums for issuers, reduced investor demand, financial distress among financial guaranty insurance providers, a general tightening of credit and substantial regulatory uncertainty. Although we have been able to complete two securitizations, these conditions, which may increase our cost of financing, and may reduce or even eliminate our access to the securitization market, may continue or worsen in the future. As a result, these conditions may result in our inability to sell securities in the asset-backed securities market. Further, our repurchase facilities may not be adequate to fund our mortgage purchasing activities until such disruptions in the securitization markets subside. Further or continued disruptions in this market or any adverse change or delay in our ability to access the market could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity and results of operations. Low investor demand for asset-backed securities could force us to hold mortgage loans until investor demand improves, but our capacity to hold such mortgage loans is limited. Continuing adverse market conditions could also result in increased costs and reduced margins earned in connection with our planned securitization transactions.

Our ability to execute securitizations of residential mortgage loans could also be delayed, limited, or precluded by legislative and regulatory reforms applicable to asset-backed securities and the institutions that sponsor, service, rate, or otherwise participate in, or contribute to, the successful execution of a securitization transaction. Other factors could also limit, delay or preclude our ability to execute securitization transactions. These legislative, regulatory and other factors could also reduce the returns we would otherwise expect to earn in connection with securitization transactions.

Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act require significant revisions to the legal and regulatory framework which apply to the asset-backed securities markets and securitizations. Some of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have become effective or been implemented, while others are in the process of being implemented or will become effective in the future.

We cannot predict how the Dodd-Frank Act, its regulations and other regulations that have been proposed or recently adopted will affect our ability to execute securitizations of residential mortgage loans. For example, in October 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Board and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency adopting final rules (the “Risk Retention Rules”) implementing the credit risk retention requirements of section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Act relating to asset-backed securities. Under the Risk Retention Rules, both public and private securitizers are required to retain not less than 5% of the credit risk of the assets collateralizing any asset-backed security issuance. Securitization of qualified residential mortgage loans (“QRMs”) are exempt from the Risk Retention Rules. The definition of a QRM in the Risk Retention Rules is effectively the same as the definition of “qualified mortgage” under Regulation Z, as amended by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which implements the Truth in Lending Act. If securitizers combine QRMs and non-QRM loans in the same pool, the Risk Retention Rules will apply. The Risk Retention Rules became effective on December 24, 2015, and applies to the securitization of residential mortgage loans from and after such date.

In August 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted comprehensive amendments to Regulation AB and the other rule affecting the offering process for asset-backed securities (“Regulation AB II”). Regulation AB II requires a significant increase in the amount of disclosure, including asset level disclosure, provided to investors. Regulation AB II became effective on November 23, 2014. All of the rules, other than the asset disclosure rules, must be complied with within one year from the Regulation AB II effective date. The asset level disclosure rules must be complied with no later than two years from the Regulation AB II effective date.

There can be no assurance that the full implementation of the proposed rules and regulations or the recently adopted rules such as the Risk Retention Rules and Regulation AB II will not have an adverse effect on our ability to perform securitizations of mortgage loans or resecuritizations of our existing RMBS. In addition to the Dodd-Frank Act, its related rules, the Risk Retention Rules and Regulation AB II, other federal or state laws and regulations that could affect our ability to execute securitization transactions may be proposed, enacted, or implemented. These laws and regulations could effectively preclude us from executing securitization transactions, could delay our execution of these types of transactions, or could reduce the returns we would otherwise expect to earn from executing securitization transactions.

In addition to these laws and rules, other U.S. federal or state laws and regulations that could affect our ability to sell assets into securitization programs may be proposed, enacted, or implemented. These laws and regulations could effectively preclude us from financing our assets through securitizations or could delay our execution of these types of transactions. Other matters, such as (i) accounting standards applicable to securitization transactions and (ii) capital and leverage requirements applicable to banks and other regulated financial institutions that traditionally purchase and hold asset-backed securities, could result in less investor demand for securities issued through securitization transactions we plan to execute or increased competition from other institutions that execute securitization transactions.

Our ability to profitably participate in (or execute) future securitizations of residential mortgage loans is dependent on numerous factors, and if we are not able to achieve our desired level of profitability or if we incur losses in connection with participating in (or executing) future securitizations, it could adversely impact our business and financial condition.

There are a number of factors that can have a significant impact on whether a securitization transaction that we participate in (or execute) is profitable to us or results in a loss. One of these factors is the price we pay for the residential mortgage loans that we securitize, which is impacted by the level of competition in the marketplace for acquiring residential mortgage loans and the relative desirability to originators of retaining residential mortgage loans as investments or selling them to third parties such as us. Another factor that impacts the profitability of a securitization transaction is the cost to us of the short-term debt 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 securitize, we can also suffer losses if the value of those loans declines prior to securitization. For example, declines in the value of a residential mortgage loan can be due to, among other things, changes in interest rates and changes in the credit quality of the loan. 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 applied by the rating agencies 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 are assigned a triple-A rating, 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, and the structure of the securitization transaction and other applicable rating agency criteria.

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, 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 were are not able to profitably execute future securitizations of residential mortgage loans, including for the reasons described above or for other reasons, it could adversely impact our business and financial condition.

Rating agencies may affect our ability to execute securitization transactions, or may reduce the returns we would otherwise expect to earn from securitization transactions.

Rating agencies have historically played a central role in the securitization markets. Many purchasers of asset-backed securities require that a security be rated by the agencies at or above a specific grade before they will consider purchasing it. The rating agencies could adversely affect our ability to execute securitization transactions by deciding not to publish ratings for our securitization transaction, deciding not to consent to the inclusion of those ratings in any prospectuses we may file with the SEC relating to securitization transactions, or by assigning ratings that are below the thresholds investors require. Further, rating agencies could alter their ratings processes or criteria after we have accumulated loans for securitization in a manner that reduces the value of previously acquired loans or that requires us to incur additional costs to comply with those processes and criteria.

Our securitization activities expose us to an increased risk of litigation, which may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Through FOAC, our wholly owned subsidiary, we engage in securitization transactions relating to residential mortgage loans. In the future, we expect to continue to engage in securitization transactions involving residential mortgage loans.

When engaging in securitization transactions, we participate in (and may in the future prepare) disclosure documentation, including term sheets and offering memorandums, which include disclosures regarding the securitization transactions and the assets being securitized. If our disclosure documentation is alleged or found to contain inaccuracies or omissions, we may be liable under federal securities laws, state securities laws or other applicable laws for damages to third parties that invest in these securitization transactions, including in circumstances in which we relied on a third party in preparing accurate disclosures, or we may incur other expenses and costs in connection with disputing these allegations or settling claims. We may also sell or contribute residential mortgage loans to third parties which, in turn, securitize those loans, and including liability for disclosures prepared by third parties or with respect to loans that we did not sell or contribute to the securitization.

In recent years, there has also been debate as to whether there are defects in the legal process and legal documents governing transactions in which securitization trusts and other secondary purchasers take legal ownership of residential mortgage loans and establish their rights as first priority lien holders on underlying mortgaged property. To the extent there are problems with the manner in which title and lien priority rights were established or transferred, securitization transactions that are third-party sponsored securitizations (or that we sponsor) that we hold investments in, we may experience losses.

Defending a lawsuit can consume significant resources and may divert management’s attention from our operations. We may be required to establish reserves for potential losses from litigation, which could be material. To the extent we are unsuccessful in our defense of any lawsuit, we could suffer losses which could be in excess of any reserves established relating to that lawsuit and these losses could be material.

We may be subject to counterparty exposure risk in connection with our plans to securitize residential mortgage loans including MSRs and this risk could adversely affect our ability to operate profitably.

When engaging in securitization transactions which include MSR acquisitions, we may be required to make representations and warranties to the purchasers of the underlying residential mortgage loans regarding, among other things, certain characteristics of those mortgage loans. If our representations and warranties are inaccurate, we may be obligated to repurchase certain mortgage loans, which may result in a loss. Even if we obtain representations and warranties from the loan originator or other parties from whom we acquired the mortgage loans which include MSRs, as applicable, they may not correspond with the representations and warranties we make or may otherwise not protect us from losses. For example, if representations and warranties we obtain from those parties do not exactly align with the representations and warranties we make, or if the representations and warranties made to us are not enforceable or if we cannot collect damages for a breach (e.g., due to the financial condition of the party that made the representation or warranty to us), we may incur losses.

We may be subject to fines or other penalties based on the conduct of the mortgage loan originators and brokers that originated the residential mortgage loans that we subsequently acquire, and the third-party servicers which service the loans we acquire.

Mortgage loan originators and brokers are subject to strict and evolving consumer protection laws and other legal obligations with respect to the origination of residential mortgage loans. These laws and regulations include the CFPB’s “ability-to-repay” and “qualified mortgage” regulations, which became effective on January 10, 2014. 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, or HOEPA, requires lenders to make certain disclosures and comply with certain limitations with respect to loans that are considered to be “high cost” loans. These requirements, 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 an applicable standard or test even if the mortgage loan originator reasonably believed such standard or test had been satisfied. Failure or alleged failure of residential mortgage loan originators to comply with these laws and regulations could subject us, as an assignee or purchaser of these loans or securities backed by these loans, to delays in foreclosure proceedings, increased litigation expenses, monetary penalties and defenses to foreclosure, including by recoupment or setoff of finance charges and fees collected, and in some cases could also result in rescission of the affected residential mortgage loans, which could adversely impact our business and financial results.

We may be required to make servicing advances and may be exposed to a risk of loss if such advances become non-recoverable and such advances and risk could adversely affect our liquidity or cash flow.

In connection with most (as currently anticipated) securitization transactions wherein FOAC sells mortgage loans to the securitization trust and holds the MSRs with respect to those mortgage loans, FOAC has entered into and expects to continue to enter into sub-servicing agreements with one or more sub-servicers. Pursuant to the terms of the sub-servicing agreements, FOAC will be required to refund or to fund any servicing advances that are obligated to be made by the sub-servicers. FOAC will therefore be exposed to the potential loss of any servicing advance that becomes a non-recoverable. It is expected that the aggregate amount of servicing advances, and FOAC’s exposure to the risk of loss related to such servicing advances, will increase as FOAC enters into additional securitization transactions. Such advances and exposure going forward could adversely affect our liquidity or cash flow during a financial period.

When we acquire and subsequently re-sell any mortgage loans, we may be required to repurchase such loans or indemnify investors if we breach certain representations and warranties.

When we acquire and subsequently re-sell any mortgage loans, we are generally be required to make customary representations and warranties about such loans to the loan purchaser. Residential mortgage loan sale agreements and the terms of any securitizations into which we may sell or deposit loans will generally require us to repurchase or substitute loans in the event that we breach a representation or warranty given to the loan purchaser or the securitization trust. In addition, we may be required to repurchase loans as a result of borrower fraud or in the event of an early payment default by a borrower. Repurchased loans are typically worth only a fraction of the original price. Significant repurchase activity could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions.

Certain investments in portfolios of whole mortgage loans and other mortgage assets may require us to purchase less desirable mortgage assets as part of an otherwise desirable pool of mortgage assets, which could subject us to additional risks relating to the less desirable mortgage assets.

If we acquire portfolios of whole mortgage loans and other mortgage assets, the portfolio may contain some assets that we would not otherwise seek to acquire on their own. These other assets may subject us to additional risks. Acquisition of less desirable mortgage assets may impair our performance and reduce the return on our investments.

Government use of eminent domain to seize underwater mortgages could materially adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, our RMBS.

The mortgages securing our investments are located in many geographic regions across the United States, with significantly higher exposure in California, Massachusetts and Washington. Several county and municipal governments have discussed using eminent domain to seize from mortgage holders the mortgages of borrowers who are underwater, but not in default. Legislation enacted in 2014 prohibits the FHFA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development from using federal funds to facilitate the seizure of mortgage loans by a state or local municipality. However, if definitive action is taken by any local governments and such actions withstand Constitutional and other legal challenges, resulting in mortgages securing certain of our investments being seized using eminent domain, the consideration received from the seizing authorities for such mortgages may be substantially less than the outstanding principal balance, which would result in a realized loss and a corresponding write-down of the principal balance of those mortgages. The result of these seizures would be that the amounts we receive on our investments would be less than we would otherwise have received if the mortgage loans had not been seized, which may result in a lower return on such assets or require charges for “other-than-temporary impairment” or loan loss reserves. If governments ultimately adopt such plans and mortgages securing certain of our investments are seized on a widespread scale, it could have an adverse effect on the value of and/or returns on our assets and our results of operations more generally.

We operate in a highly competitive market for investment opportunities and competition may limit our ability to acquire desirable investments in RMBS, Multi-Family MBS, residential mortgage loans, MSRs and other mortgage related investments and could also affect the pricing of these securities.

We operate in a highly competitive market for investment opportunities. Our profitability depends, in large part, on our ability to acquire RMBS, Multi-Family MBS, residential mortgage loans, MSRs and other mortgage related investments and other mortgage-related investments at favorable prices. In acquiring these assets, we will compete with a variety of institutional investors, including other REITs, specialty finance companies, public and private funds, hedge funds, commercial and investment banks, commercial finance and insurance companies and other financial institutions. Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do. New companies, including REITs, have recently raised, or are expected to raise, significant amounts of capital, and may have investment objectives that overlap with ours, which may create additional competition for investment opportunities. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that may not be available to us, such as funding from the U.S. Government. Many of our competitors are not subject to the operating constraints associated with REIT tax compliance or maintenance of an exclusion from the Investment Company Act. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of investments and establish more relationships than us. Furthermore, competition for investments in RMBS, Multi-Family MBS, residential mortgage loans, MSRs and other mortgage related investments may lead to the price of such assets increasing, which may further limit our ability to generate desired returns. We cannot assure you that the competitive pressures we face will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Also, as a result of this competition, desirable investments in these assets may be limited in the future and we may not be able to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities from time to time, as we can provide no assurance that we will be able to identify and make investments that are consistent with our investment objectives.

Adverse developments in the broader residential mortgage market may adversely affect the value of the assets in which we invest.

Since 2007, the residential mortgage market in the United States has experienced a variety of unprecedented difficulties and significant adverse changes in economic conditions, including defaults, credit losses and liquidity concerns. Certain commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies announced extensive losses from exposure to the residential mortgage market. These losses reduced financial industry capital, leading to reduced liquidity for some institutions. These factors have impacted investor perception of the risk associated with real estate-related assets, including Agency RMBS and other high-quality RMBS assets. As a result, values for RMBS assets, including some Agency RMBS and other AAA-rated RMBS assets, have experienced a certain amount of volatility. Further increased volatility and deterioration in the broader residential mortgage and RMBS markets may adversely affect the performance and market value of the Agency and Non-Agency RMBS in which we invest. Accordingly, our results of operations may be materially affected by conditions in the residential mortgage market, including MBS.

We invest in Agency and Non-Agency RMBS. We rely on our securities as collateral for our financings. Any decline in their value, or perceived market uncertainty about their value, would likely make it difficult for us to obtain financing on favorable terms or at all, or maintain our compliance with terms of any financing arrangements already in place. The securities we acquire will be classified for accounting purposes as available-for-sale. All assets classified as available-for-sale will be reported at fair value, based on market prices from third-party sources, with unrealized gains and losses excluded from earnings and reported as a separate component of stockholders’ equity. As a result, a decline in fair values may reduce the book value of our assets. Moreover, if the decline in fair value of an available-for-sale security is other-than-temporarily impaired, such decline will reduce earnings. If market conditions result in a decline in the fair value of our assets, our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected.

A prolonged economic recession and further declining real estate values could impair our assets and harm our operations.

The risks associated with our business are more severe during economic recessions and are compounded by declining real estate values. The Non- Agency RMBS in which we invest a significant part of our capital will be particularly sensitive to these risks. Declining real estate values will likely reduce the level of new mortgage loan originations since borrowers often use appreciation in the value of their existing properties to support the purchase of additional properties. Borrowers will also be less able to pay principal and interest on loans underlying the securities in which we invest if the value of residential real estate weakens further. Further, declining real estate values significantly increase the likelihood that we will incur losses on Non-Agency RMBS in the event of default because the value of collateral on the mortgages underlying such securities may be insufficient to cover the outstanding principal amount of the loan. Any sustained period of increased payment delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect our net interest income from Non-Agency RMBS in our portfolio, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The lack of liquidity in our investments may adversely affect our business.

We acquire assets that are not liquid or publicly traded. A lack of liquidity may result from the absence of a willing buyer or an established market for these assets, as well as legal or contractual restrictions on resale or the unavailability of financing for these assets. In addition, mortgage- related assets generally experience periods of illiquidity, including the recent period of delinquencies and defaults with respect to residential and commercial mortgage loans. Further, validating third-party pricing for illiquid assets may be more subjective than for liquid assets. Any illiquidity of our investments may make it difficult for us to sell such investments if the need or desire arises. In addition, if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we have previously recorded our investments. Further, we may face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate an investment in a business entity to the extent that we or our Manager has or could be attributed with material, non-public information regarding such business entity. If we are unable to sell our assets at favorable prices or at all, it could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Assets that are illiquid are more difficult to finance, and to the extent that we use leverage to finance assets that become illiquid, we may lose that leverage or have it reduced. Assets tend to become less liquid during times of financial stress, which is often the time that liquidity is most needed. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be relatively limited, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Changes in the underwriting standards by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae could have an adverse impact on agency mortgage investments in which we may invest or make it more difficult to acquire attractive non-Agency mortgage investments.

In April 2010, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae announced tighter underwriting guidelines for ARMs and hybrid interest-only ARMs in particular. Specifically, Freddie Mac announced that it would no longer purchase interest-only mortgages and Fannie Mae changed its eligibility criteria for purchasing and securitizing ARMs to protect consumers from potentially dramatic payment increases. Our target assets include ARMs and hybrid ARMs. Tighter underwriting standards by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae could reduce the supply of ARMs, resulting in a reduction in the availability of the asset class. More lenient underwriting standards could also substantially reduce the supply and attractiveness of investments in Non-Agency RMBS.

We will be subject to the risk that U.S. Government agencies and/or GSEs may not be able to fully satisfy their guarantees of Agency RMBS or that these guarantee obligations may be repudiated, which may adversely affect the value of our assets and our ability to sell or finance these securities.

The interest and principal payments we receive on the Agency RMBS in which we invest is guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. Unlike the Ginnie Mae securities in which we invest, the principal and interest on securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not guaranteed by the U.S. Government. All the Agency RMBS in which we invest depend on a steady stream of payments on the mortgages underlying the securities.

As conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FHFA may disaffirm or repudiate contracts (subject to certain limitations for qualified financial contracts) that Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae entered into prior to the FHFA’s appointment as conservator if it determines, in its sole discretion, that performance of the contract is burdensome and that disaffirmation or repudiation of the contract promotes the orderly administration of its affairs. HERA requires the FHFA to exercise its right to disaffirm or repudiate most contracts within a reasonable period of time after its appointment as conservator. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have disclosed that the FHFA has disaffirmed certain consulting and other contracts that these entities entered into prior to the FHFA’s appointment as conservator. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have also disclosed that the FHFA has advised that it does not intend to repudiate any guarantee obligation relating to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s mortgage-related securities, because the FHFA views repudiation as incompatible with the goals of the conservatorship. In addition, HERA provides that mortgage loans and mortgage-related assets that have been transferred to a Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae securitization trust must be held for the beneficial owners of the related mortgage-related securities and cannot be used to satisfy the general creditors of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.

If the guarantee obligations of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae were repudiated by the FHFA, payments of principal and/or interest to holders of Agency RMBS issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae would be reduced in the event of borrowers’ late payments or failure to pay or a servicer’s failure to remit borrower payments to the trust. In that case, trust administration and servicing fees could be paid from mortgage payments prior to distributions to holders of Agency RMBS. Any actual direct compensatory damages owed due to the repudiation of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae’s guarantee obligations may not be sufficient to offset any shortfalls experienced by holders of Agency RMBS. The FHFA also has the right to transfer or sell any asset or liability of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, including its guarantee obligation, without any approval, assignment or consent. If the FHFA were to transfer Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae’s guarantee obligations to another party, holders of Agency RMBS would have to rely on that party for satisfaction of the guarantee obligation and would be exposed to the credit risk of that party.

Our investments in Non-Agency RMBS and Multi-Family MBS are generally subject to losses.

We acquire Non-Agency RMBS and Multi-Family MBS. In general, losses on a mortgaged property securing a mortgage loan included in a securitization will be borne first by the equity holder of the property, then by a cash reserve fund or letter of credit, if any, then by the holder of a mezzanine loan or B-Note, if any, then by the “first loss” subordinated security holder and then by the holder of a higher-rated security. In the event of default and the exhaustion of any equity support, reserve fund, letter of credit, mezzanine loans or B-Notes, and any classes of securities junior to those in which we invest, we will not be able to recover all of our investment in the securities we purchase. In addition, if the underlying mortgage portfolio has been overvalued by the originator, or if the values subsequently decline, less collateral is available to satisfy interest and principal payments due on the related Non-Agency RMBS or Multi-Family MBS. The prices of lower credit quality securities are generally less sensitive to interest rate changes than more highly rated investments, but more sensitive to adverse economic downturns or individual issuer developments.

We acquire RMBS collateralized by subprime mortgage loans, and we may acquire subprime mortgage loans, which are subject to increased risks.

Among other assets, we acquire RMBS backed by collateral pools of subprime mortgage loans, and we may acquire subprime mortgage loans, which are mortgage loans that have been originated using underwriting standards that are less conservative than those used in underwriting prime mortgage loans (mortgage loans that generally conform to GSE underwriting guidelines) and Alt-A mortgage loans (mortgage loans made to borrowers whose qualifying mortgage characteristics do not conform to GSE underwriting guidelines and generally allow homeowners to qualify for a mortgage loan with reduced or alternate forms of documentation). These lower standards include mortgage loans made to borrowers having imperfect or impaired credit histories, mortgage loans where the amount of the loan at origination is 80% or more of the value of the mortgage property, mortgage loans made to borrowers with low credit scores, mortgage loans made to borrowers who have other debt that represents a large portion of their income and mortgage loans made to borrowers whose income is not required to be disclosed or verified. Due to economic conditions, including increased interest rates, lower home prices and the general economic downturn, as well as aggressive lending practices, subprime mortgage loans have in recent periods experienced increased rates of delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss, and they are likely to continue to experience delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss rates that may be substantially higher than those experienced by mortgage loans underwritten in a more traditional manner. In the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor in possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process, which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan. In acquiring these assets, we endeavor to factor the risk of losses on the underlying mortgages into the purchase price of the asset. If we underestimate those losses the performance of RMBS backed by subprime mortgage loans and any subprime mortgage loans that we acquire could be adversely affected, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

To the extent that due diligence is conducted on potential assets, such due diligence may not reveal all of the risks associated with such assets and may not reveal other weaknesses in such assets, which could lead to losses.

Before acquiring certain assets, such as prime jumbo residential whole loans, Multi-Family MBS or other mortgage-related assets, we or our Manager conducts (either directly or using third parties) due diligence. Such due diligence may include (1) an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the asset’s credit profile, (2) a review of all or merely a subset of the documentation related to the asset, or (3) other reviews that we or our Manager may deem appropriate to conduct. There can be no assurance that we or our Manager will conduct any specific level of due diligence, or that, among other things, the due diligence process will uncover all relevant facts and potential liabilities or that any purchase will be successful, which could result in losses on these assets, which, in turn, could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our senior management and our external managers utilize analytical models and data in connection with the valuation of certain of our assets, and any incorrect, misleading or incomplete information used in connection therewith would subject us to potential risks.

Given the complexity of certain of our target assets, such as Multi-Family MBS, our Manager must rely heavily on analytical models and information and data supplied by third parties. Models and data are used to value potential target assets, potential credit risks and reserves and also in connection with hedging our acquisitions. Many of the models are 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 models to also 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, especially valuation models, our Manager may be induced to buy for us certain target assets at prices that are too high, to sell certain other assets at prices that are too low or to miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging based on faulty models and data may prove to be unsuccessful.

Any credit ratings assigned to our investments will be subject to ongoing evaluations and revisions and we cannot assure you that those ratings will not be downgraded.

Some of our investments may be rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Fitch Ratings, Standard & Poor’s or other rating agencies. Any credit ratings on our investments are subject to ongoing evaluation by credit rating agencies, and we cannot assure you that any such ratings will not be changed or withdrawn by a rating agency in the future if, in its judgment, circumstances warrant. If rating agencies assign a lower-than-expected rating or reduce or withdraw, or indicate that they may reduce or withdraw, their ratings of our investments in the future, the value of these investments could significantly decline, which would adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio and could result in losses upon disposition or the failure of borrowers to satisfy their debt service obligations to us.

The mortgage loans underlying the Non-Agency RMBS that we acquire and the residential mortgage loans in which we invest will be subject to defaults, foreclosure timeline extension, fraud and residential price depreciation and unfavorable modification of loan principal amount, interest rate and amortization of principal, which could result in losses to us.

Our investments in Non-Agency RMBS and residential mortgage loans are subject to the risks of defaults, foreclosure timeline extension, fraud and home price depreciation and unfavorable modification of loan principal amount, interest rate and amortization of principal, which could result in loss to us. The ability of a borrower to repay a mortgage loan secured by a residential property is dependent upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors may impair borrowers’ abilities to repay their loans, including:

In the event of defaults on the residential mortgage loans in which we invest or that underlie our investments in Non-Agency RMBS and the exhaustion of any underlying or any additional credit support, we may not realize our anticipated return on our investments and we may incur a loss on these investments. In addition, our investments in Non-Agency RMBS are backed by residential real property but, in contrast to Agency RMBS, their principal and interest are not guaranteed by a U.S. Government agency or a GSE. The ability of a borrower to repay these loans or other financial assets is dependent upon the income or assets of these borrowers.

The failure of servicers to effectively service the mortgage loans underlying the RMBS in our investment portfolio or the mortgage loans we own would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Most securitizations of residential mortgage loans require a servicer to manage collections on each of the underlying loans. Both default frequency and default severity of loans may depend upon the quality of the servicer. If servicers are not vigilant in encouraging borrowers to make their monthly payments, the borrowers may be far less likely to make these payments, which could result in a higher frequency of default. If servicers take longer to liquidate non-performing assets, loss severities may tend to be higher than originally anticipated. The failure of servicers to effectively service the mortgage loans underlying the RMBS in our investment portfolio or any mortgage loans we own could negatively impact the value of our investments and our performance. Servicer quality is of prime importance in the default performance of RMBS. Many servicers have gone out of business in recent years, requiring a transfer of servicing to another servicer. This transfer takes time and loans may become delinquent because of confusion or lack of attention. When servicing is transferred, servicing fees may increase, which may have an adverse effect on the credit support of RMBS held by us. In the case of pools of securitized loans, servicers may be required to advance interest on delinquent loans to the extent the servicer deems those advances recoverable. In the event the servicer does not advance funds, interest may be interrupted even on more senior securities. Servicers may also advance more than is in fact recoverable once a defaulted loan is disposed, and the loss to the trust may be greater than the outstanding principal balance of that loan (greater than 100% loss severity).

We may be affected by deficiencies in foreclosure practices of third parties, as well as related delays in the foreclosure process.

There continues to be uncertainty around the timing and ability of servicers to remove delinquent borrowers from their homes, so that they can liquidate the underlying properties and ultimately pass the liquidation proceeds through to owners of the mortgage loans or related RMBS. Given the magnitude of the housing crisis, and in response to the well-publicized failures of many servicers to follow proper foreclosure procedures (such as “robo-signing”), mortgage servicers are being held to much higher foreclosure-related documentation standards than they previously were. However, because many mortgages have been transferred and assigned multiple times (and by means of varying assignment procedures) throughout the origination, warehouse and securitization processes, mortgage servicers may have difficulty furnishing the requisite documentation to initiate or complete foreclosures. This leads to stalled or suspended foreclosure proceedings, and ultimately additional foreclosure-related costs. Foreclosure-related delays also tend to increase ultimate loan loss severities as a result of property deterioration, amplified legal and other costs, and other factors. Many factors delaying foreclosure, such as borrower lawsuits and judicial backlog and scrutiny, are outside of servicers’ control and have delayed, and will likely continue to delay, foreclosure processing in both judicial states (where foreclosures require court involvement) and non-judicial states. A servicer’s failure to remove delinquent borrowers from their homes in a timely manner could increase our costs, adversely affect the value of the property and mortgage loans and have an adverse effect on our results of operations and business.

Our investments may benefit from private mortgage insurance, but this insurance may not be sufficient to cover losses.

In certain instances, Non-Agency mortgage loans may have private insurance. This insurance is often structured to absorb only a portion of the loss if a loan defaults and, as such, we may be exposed to losses on these loans in excess of the insured portion of the loans. The private mortgage insurance industry has been adversely affected by the housing market decline and this may limit an insurer’s ability to perform on its insurance. Lastly, rescission and denial of mortgage insurance has increased significantly, and this may affect our ability to collect on our insurance. If private mortgage insurers fail to remit insurance payments to us for insured portions of loans when losses are incurred and where applicable, whether due to breach of contract or to an insurer’s insolvency, we may experience a loss for the amount that was insured by such insurers, though we may maintain claims against the insurers.

We may experience a decline in the market value of our assets.

A decline in the market value of our assets may require us to recognize an “other-than-temporary” impairment against such assets under GAAP if we were to determine that, with respect to any assets in unrealized loss positions, we do not have the ability and intent to hold such assets to maturity or for a period of time sufficient to allow for recovery to the amortized cost of such assets. If such a determination were to be made, we would recognize unrealized losses through earnings and write down the amortized cost of such assets to a new cost basis, based on the fair market value of such assets on the date they are considered to be other-than-temporarily impaired. Such impairment charges reflect non-cash losses at the time of recognition; subsequent disposition or sale of such assets could further affect our future losses or gains, as they are based on the difference between the sale price received and adjusted amortized cost of such assets at the time of sale. If we experience a decline in the fair value of our assets, our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected.

The allocation of the net proceeds of any equity offering among our target assets, and the timing of the deployment of these proceeds is subject to, among other things, then prevailing market conditions and the availability of target assets.

Our allocation of the net proceeds from any equity offering among our target assets is subject to our investment guidelines and maintenance of our REIT qualification. Our Manager will make determinations as to the percentage of our equity that will be invested in each of our target assets and the timing of the deployment of the net proceeds of our equity offerings. These determinations will depend on then prevailing market conditions and may change over time in response to opportunities available in different interest rate, economic and credit environments. Until appropriate assets can be identified, our Manager may decide to use the net proceeds of our offerings to pay down our short-term debt or to invest the net proceeds in interest-bearing short-term investments, including funds which are consistent with maintenance of our REIT qualification. These investments are expected to provide a lower net return than we seek to achieve from our target assets. Prior to the time we have fully used the net proceeds of our offerings to acquire our target assets, we may fund our monthly distributions out of such net proceeds.

Many of our investments are recorded at fair value, and quoted prices or observable inputs may not be available to determine such value, resulting in the use of significant unobservable inputs to determine value.

We expect that the values of some of our investments may not be readily determinable. We will measure the fair value of these investments quarterly, in accordance with guidance set forth in the Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures. The fair value at which our assets may be recorded may not be an indication of their realizable value. Ultimate realization of the value of an asset depends to a great extent on economic and other conditions that are beyond the control of our Manager, us or our board of directors. Further, fair value is only an estimate based on good faith judgment of the price at which an investment can be sold since market prices of investments can only be determined by negotiation between a willing buyer and seller. If we were to liquidate a particular asset, the realized value may be more than or less than the amount at which such asset is valued. Accordingly, the value of our equity securities could be adversely affected by our determinations regarding the fair value of our investments, whether in the applicable period or in the future. Additionally, such valuations may fluctuate over short periods of time.

In certain cases, our Manager’s determination of the fair value of our investments will include inputs provided by third-party dealers and pricing services. Valuations of certain investments in which we may invest are often difficult to obtain or unreliable. In general, dealers and pricing services heavily disclaim their valuations. Dealers may claim to furnish valuations only as an accommodation and without special compensation, and so they may disclaim any and all liability for any direct, incidental or consequential damages arising out of any inaccuracy or incompleteness in valuations, including any act of negligence or breach of any warranty. Depending on the complexity and illiquidity of a security, valuations of the same security can vary substantially from one dealer or pricing service to another. Therefore, our results of operations for a given period could be adversely affected if our determinations regarding the fair market value of these investments are materially different than the values that we ultimately realize upon their disposal. The valuation process has been particularly challenging recently as market events have made valuations of certain assets more difficult, unpredictable and volatile.

Because we acquire fixed-rate securities and residential mortgage loans, an increase in interest rates on our borrowings adversely affects our book value.

Increases in interest rates negatively affect the market value of our assets. Any fixed-rate securities or loans that we invest in generally are more negatively affected by these increases than adjustable-rate securities or loans. In accordance with accounting rules, we are required to reduce our book value by the amount of any decrease in the market value of our assets that are classified for accounting purposes as available-for-sale or for which we have elected the fair value option. Our entire investment portfolio is priced by independent pricing providers or by third- party brokers. If the fair value of a security is not available from a third- party pricing service or dealer, we estimate the fair value of the security using a variety of models and analyses, taking into consideration aggregate characteristics including, but not limited to, type of collateral, index, margin, periodic interest rate caps, lifetime interest rate caps, underwriting standards, age and delinquency experience. However, the fair value reflects estimates and may not be indicative of the amounts we would receive in a current market exchange. If we determine that a security is other-than- temporarily impaired, we would be required to reduce the value of such security on our balance sheet by recording an impairment charge in our income statement and our stockholders’ equity would be correspondingly reduced. Reductions in stockholders’ equity decrease the amounts that we may borrow to purchase additional assets, which could restrict our ability to increase our net income.

An increase in interest rates may cause a decrease in the volume of certain of our assets, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and make distributions to our stockholders.

Rising interest rates generally reduce the demand for mortgage loans due to the higher cost of borrowing. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans originated may affect the volume of RMBS, Multi-Family MBS, residential mortgage loans, MSRs and other mortgage related investments available to us, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives. Rising interest rates may also cause our assets that were issued prior to an interest rate increase to provide yields that are below prevailing market interest rates. If rising interest rates cause us to be unable to acquire a sufficient volume of RMBS, Multi-Family MBS, residential mortgage loans, MSRs and other mortgage related investments with a yield that is above our borrowing cost, our ability to satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and make distributions to our stockholders may be adversely affected.

The relationship between short-term and longer-term interest rates is often referred to as the “yield curve.” Ordinarily, short-term interest rates are lower than longer-term interest rates. 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 assets. Because we expect our investments, on average, generally will bear interest based on longer-term rates than our borrowings, a flattening of the yield curve would tend to decrease our net income and the market value of our net assets. Additionally, to the extent cash flows from investments that return scheduled and unscheduled principal are reinvested, the spread between the yields on 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), in which event our borrowing costs may exceed our interest income and we could incur operating losses. Although a historically rare phenomenon, many countries in Europe have experienced inverted yield curves in recent months. Given the volatile nature of the U.S. economy since the end of the third round of quantitative easing, or QE3, and the Fed’s recent increase in short-term interest rates, there can be no guarantee that the yield curve will not become and/or remain inverted.

Increases in interest rates typically adversely affect the value of our investments and cause our interest expense to increase, which could result in reduced earnings or losses and negatively affect our profitability as well as the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We invest in RMBS, Multi-Family MBS, residential mortgage loans, MSRs and other mortgage related investments. In a normal yield curve environment, an investment in the fixed-rate component of such assets will generally decline in value if future long-term interest rates increase. Declines in market value may ultimately reduce earnings or result in losses to us, which may negatively affect cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

A significant risk associated with RMBS, Multi-Family MBS, residential mortgage loans, MSRs and other mortgage related investments is the risk that both long-term and short- term interest rates will increase significantly. If long-term rates increased significantly, the market value of these investments would decline, and the duration and weighted average life of the investments would increase. We could realize a loss if the securities were sold. At the same time, an increase in short-term interest rates would increase the amount of interest owed on any repurchase agreements we may enter into.

Market values of our investments may decline without any general increase in interest rates for a number of reasons, such as increases or expected increases in defaults, or increases or expected increases in voluntary prepayments for those investments that are subject to prepayment risk or widening of credit spreads.

In addition, in a period of rising interest rates, our operating results will depend in large part on the difference between the income from our assets and our financing costs. We anticipate that, in most cases, the income from such assets will respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Consequently, changes in interest rates, particularly short- term interest rates, may significantly influence our net income. Increases in these rates will tend to decrease our net income and market value of our assets.

Interest rate mismatches between our RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs and our borrowings used to fund our purchases of these assets may cause us to suffer losses.

We may fund our RMBS with borrowings that have interest rates that adjust more frequently than the interest rate indices and repricing terms of RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs. Accordingly, if short-term interest rates increase, our borrowing costs may increase faster than the interest rates on RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs adjust. As a result, in a period of rising interest rates, we could experience a decrease in net income or a net loss.

In most cases, the interest rate indices and repricing terms of RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs and our borrowings will not be identical, thereby potentially creating an interest rate mismatch between our investments and our borrowings. While the historical spread between relevant short-term interest rate indices has been relatively stable, there have been periods when the spread between these indices was volatile. During periods of changing interest rates, these interest rate index mismatches could reduce our net income or produce a net loss and adversely affect the level of our distributions to our stockholders and the market price of our equity securities.

In addition, RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs will typically be subject to lifetime interest rate caps that limit the amount an interest rate can increase through the maturity of the RMBS. However, our borrowings under repurchase agreements typically will not be 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 caps could limit the interest rates on these types of RMBS. This problem is magnified for RMBS backed by ARMs or hybrid ARMs that are not fully indexed. Further, some RMBS backed by ARMs or 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, we may receive less cash income on these types of RMBS than we need to pay interest on our related borrowings. These factors could reduce our net interest income and cause us to suffer a loss during periods of rising interest rates.

Interest rate fluctuations may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental, monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political considerations and other factors beyond our control. Our success will depend on our ability to analyze the relationship changing interest rates may have on our financial position and results of operations in general and the impact such rate changes may have on critical elements underlying our target assets and borrowings. In particular,

In accordance with accounting rules, we are required to reduce our stockholders’ equity, or book value, by the amount of any decrease in the market value of our securities that are classified for accounting purposes as available-for-sale. We are required to evaluate our securities on a quarterly basis to determine their fair value by using third-party bid price indications provided by dealers who make markets in these securities or by third-party pricing services. If the fair value of a security is not available from a dealer or third-party pricing service, we will estimate the fair value of the security using a variety of methods including, but not limited to, discounted cash flow analysis, matrix pricing, option-adjusted spread models and fundamental analysis. Aggregate characteristics taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, type of collateral, index, margin, periodic cap, lifetime cap, underwriting standards, age and delinquency experience. However, the fair value reflects estimates and may not be indicative of the amounts we would receive in a current market sale transaction. If we determine that a security is other-than-temporarily impaired, we are required to reduce the value of such security on our balance sheet by recording an impairment charge in our income statement, and our stockholders’ equity is correspondingly reduced. Reductions in stockholders’ equity decrease the amounts we may borrow to purchase additional securities, which could restrict our ability to implement our investment strategy, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. In addition, rising interest rates generally reduce the demand for consumer credit, including mortgage loans, due to the higher cost of borrowing. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans originated may affect the volume of RMBS available to us, which could affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives.

Changes in prepayment rates may adversely affect our profitability.

The RMBS assets we acquire are backed by pools of residential mortgage loans. We also invest in residential mortgage loans. We receive payments, generally, from the payments that are made on these underlying residential mortgage loans. When residential mortgage loans are prepaid (including by way of voluntary prepayments by borrowers, loan buyouts and liquidations due to defaults and foreclosures) at rates that are faster than expected, this results in prepayments that are faster than expected on the related RMBS. These faster than expected payments may adversely affect our profitability. In addition, a decrease in prepayment rates may adversely affect our results of operations. When residential mortgage loans are prepaid at slower than expected rates, prepayments on the RMBS may be slower than expected. These slower than expected payments may adversely affect our profitability.

We purchase RMBS assets, and purchase residential mortgage loans, that have a higher interest rate than the then prevailing market interest rate. In exchange for this higher interest rate, we may pay a premium to par value to acquire the asset. In accordance with GAAP, we amortize this premium over the expected term of the asset based on our prepayment assumptions or its contractual terms, depending on the type of asset. If the asset is prepaid in whole or in part at a faster than expected rate or contractual term (as applicable), however, we must expense all or a part of the remaining unamortized portion of the premium that was paid at the time of the purchase, which will adversely affect our profitability.

We also purchase RMBS assets or residential mortgage loans that have a lower interest rate than the then prevailing market interest rate. In exchange for this lower interest rate, we may pay a discount to par value to acquire the asset. In accordance with GAAP, we accrete this discount over the expected term of the asset based on our prepayment assumptions or its contractual terms. If the asset is prepaid at a slower than expected rate, however, we must accrete the remaining portion of the discount at a slower than expected rate. This will extend the expected life of the asset and result in a lower than expected yield on assets purchased at a discount to par.

Prepayment rates generally increase when interest rates fall and decrease when interest rates rise, but changes in prepayment rates are difficult to predict. Prepayments can also occur when borrowers default on their residential mortgages and the mortgages are prepaid from the proceeds of a foreclosure sale of the property, or when borrowers sell the property and use the sale proceeds to prepay the mortgage as part of a physical relocation. Prepayment rates also may be affected by conditions in the housing and financial markets, general economic conditions and the relative interest rates on fixed-rate mortgages and ARMs and increasing defaults on residential mortgage loans, which could lead to an acceleration of the payment of the related principal. While we will seek to manage prepayment risk, in selecting RMBS investments we must balance prepayment risk against other risks, the potential returns of each investment and the cost of hedging our risks. No strategy can completely insulate us from prepayment or other such risks, and we may deliberately retain exposure to prepayment or other risks.

Changing market conditions may upset the historical relationship between interest rate changes and prepayment trends, which would make it more difficult for us to analyze our portfolio.

Our success will depend on our ability to analyze the relationship of changing interest rates and prepayments of the mortgages that underlie our target assets. Changes in interest rates and prepayments will affect the market price of the target assets that we purchase and any target assets that we hold at a given time. As part of our overall portfolio risk management, we analyze interest rate changes and prepayment trends separately and collectively to assess their effects on our portfolio. In conducting our analysis, we depend on industry- accepted assumptions with respect to the relationship between interest rates and prepayments under normal market conditions. If the dislocation in the residential mortgage market or other developments change the way that prepayment trends have historically responded to interest rate changes, our ability to assess the market value of our portfolio would be significantly affected and could adversely affect our financial position and results of operations.

We are highly dependent on communications and information systems and systems failures could significantly disrupt our operations, which may, in turn, negatively affect the market price of our equity securities and our ability to make distributions.

Our business is highly dependent on the communications and information systems of our Manager that allow it to monitor, value, buy, sell, finance and hedge our investments. Any failure or interruption of our Manager’s systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and negatively affect the market price of our equity securities and our ability to make distributions.

The occurrence of cyber-incidents, or a deficiency in our cybersecurity or in those of any of our third party service providers, could negatively impact our business by causing a disruption to our operations, a compromise of our confidential information or damage to our business relationships or reputation, all of which could negatively impact our business and results of operations.

A cyber-incident is considered to be any adverse event that threatens the confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information resources or those of our third party service providers. A cyber-incident can be an intentional attack or an unintentional event and can include gaining unauthorized access to system to disrupt operations, corrupt data or steal confidential information. The primary risks that could directly results from a cyber-incident include operational interruption and private data exposure. We have implemented processes, procedures and controls to help mitigate these risks, but these measures, as well as our increased awareness of the risk of a cyber-incident, do not guarantee that our business and results of operations will not be negatively impacted by such an incident.

Rapid changes in the values of our residential mortgage loans and other real estate-related assets may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act.

If the market value or income potential of our residential mortgage loans and other real estate-related assets declines as a result (i) of increased interest rates, prepayment rates or other factors; or (ii) we determine based on subsequently available guidance from the SEC or SEC staff that our treatment as qualified interests in real estate of certain subordinated certificates we acquire (a) in the secondary market issued by K-Series trusts, or (b) from securitization trusts into which we sell residential mortgage loans, is no longer correct; we may need to increase certain real estate investments and income and/or liquidate our non-qualifying assets in order to maintain our REIT qualification or exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act. If the decline in real estate asset values and/or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish. This difficulty may be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of our investments. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent our REIT and Investment Company Act considerations.

Any downgrades, or perceived potential of downgrades, of the credit ratings of the U.S. Government, GSEs or certain European countries may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

On August 5, 2011, Standard &Poor’s downgraded the U.S. Government’s credit rating for the first time in history, and on October 15, 2013, Fitch Ratings placed the ratings of all outstanding U.S. sovereign debt securities on Rating Watch Negative. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in conservatorship of the U.S. Government, downgrades to the U.S. Government’s credit rating could impact the credit risk associated with our target assets and, therefore, decrease the value of the target assets in our portfolio. In addition, downgrades of the credit ratings of the U.S. Government, GSEs and certain European countries could create broader financial turmoil and uncertainty, which could weigh heavily on the global banking system. Therefore, any downgrades of the credit ratings of the U.S. Government, GSEs or certain European countries may adversely affect the value of our target assets and our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Risks Related to Financing and Hedging

Our strategy involves significant leverage, which may amplify losses; while we currently expect to incur approximately one to three times leverage on our New Issue Non-Agency RMBS, approximately one to four times leverage on our Multi-Family MBS, approximately one to two times leverage on our Legacy Non-Agency RMBS and approximately six to nine times leverage on our Agency RMBS there is no specific limit on the amount of leverage that we may use.

We leverage our portfolio investments in our target assets principally through borrowings under repurchase agreements. Our leverage (on both a GAAP and non-GAAP basis) currently ranges, and we expect that it will continue to range, between three and six times the amount of our stockholders’ equity. Additionally, we currently borrow, and expect that we will continue to borrow, between one to three times when acquiring New Issue Non-Agency RMBS, between one to four times when acquiring Multi-Family MBS, between one and two times when acquiring Legacy Non-Agency RMBS and between six to nine times the amount of our stockholders’ equity in acquiring Agency RMBS. The leverage our Manager is comfortable applying to each asset class at any point in time is a function of the yield profile across housing environments and also a function of price or market values in environments of excessive volatility, which cannot be ruled out. We will incur this leverage by borrowing against a substantial portion of the market value of our assets. Our leverage, which is fundamental to our investment strategy, creates significant risks.

To the extent that we incur significant leverage, we may incur substantial losses if our borrowing costs increase. Our borrowing costs may increase for any of the following, or other, reasons:

Our return on our investments and cash available for distributions may be reduced if market conditions cause the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income that can be derived from the assets acquired, which could adversely affect the price of our equity securities. In addition, our debt service payments will reduce cash flow available for distributions to stockholders. In addition, if the cost of our financing increases, we may not be able to meet our debt service obligations. To the extent that we cannot meet our debt service obligations, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to satisfy our debt obligations. To the extent we are compelled to liquidate qualified REIT assets to repay debts, our compliance with the REIT rules regarding our assets and our sources of income could be negatively affected, which would jeopardize our qualification as a REIT. Losing our REIT status would cause us to lose tax advantages applicable to REITs and would decrease our overall profitability and distributions to our stockholders.

We may continue to incur significant additional debt in the future, which will subject us to increased risk of loss and may reduce cash available for distributions to our stockholders.

Subject to market conditions and availability, we may continue to incur significant additional debt in the future. Although we are not required to maintain any particular assets-to-equity leverage ratio, the amount of leverage we may deploy for particular assets will depend upon our Manager’s assessment of the credit and other risks of those assets. Our board of directors may establish and change our leverage policy at any time without stockholder approval. Incurring debt could subject us to many risks that, if realized, would adversely affect us, including the risk that:

There can be no assurance that our Manager will be able to prevent mismatches in the maturities of our assets and liabilities.

Because we employ financial leverage in funding our portfolio, mismatches in the maturities of our assets and liabilities can create risk in the need to continually renew or otherwise refinance our liabilities. Our net interest margins will be dependent upon a positive spread between the returns on our asset portfolio and our overall cost of funding. Our Manager’s risk management tools include software and services licensed or purchased from third parties, in addition to proprietary systems and analytical methods developed internally. There can be no assurance that these tools and the other risk management techniques described above will protect us from asset/liability risks.

We are subject to margin calls under our master repurchase agreements, including our warehouse facilities, which could result in defaults or force us to sell assets under adverse market conditions or through foreclosure.

We enter into master repurchase agreements with various financial institutions and borrow under these master repurchase agreements to finance the acquisition of assets for our investment portfolio. Pursuant to the terms of borrowings under our master repurchase agreements, a decline in the value of the subject assets typically results in our lenders initiating margin calls. A margin call means that the lender requires us to pledge additional collateral to re-establish the ratio of the value of the collateral to the amount of the borrowing. The specific collateral value to borrowing ratio that would trigger a margin call is not set in the master repurchase agreements and will not be determined until we engage in a repurchase transaction under these agreements. Our fixed-rate securities generally are more susceptible to margin calls as increases in interest rates tend to more negatively affect the market value of fixed-rate securities. If we are unable to satisfy margin calls, our lenders may foreclose on our collateral. The threat of or occurrence of a margin call could force us to sell our assets, either directly or through a foreclosure, under adverse market conditions. Because of the significant leverage we have, we may incur substantial losses upon the threat or occurrence of a margin call.

If a counterparty to our repurchase transactions defaults on its obligation to resell the underlying security back to us at the end of the transaction term, or if the value of the underlying security has declined as of the end of that term, or if we default on our obligations under the repurchase agreement, we will lose money on our repurchase transactions.

When we engage in repurchase transactions, we generally sell securities to lenders (repurchase agreement counterparties) and receive cash from these lenders. The lenders are obligated to resell the same securities 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 securities to the lender is less than the value of those securities (this difference is the haircut), if the lender defaults on its obligation to resell the same securities back to us we may incur a loss on the transaction equal to the amount of the haircut (assuming there was no change in the value of the securities). We would also lose money on a repurchase transaction if the value of the underlying securities has declined as of the end of the transaction term, as we would have to repurchase the securities for their initial value but would receive securities worth less than that amount. Further, if we default on one of our obligations under a repurchase transaction, the lender can terminate all of the outstanding repurchase transactions with us and can cease entering into any other repurchase transactions with us. Our repurchase agreements contain cross-default provisions, so that if a default occurs under any one agreement, the lenders under our other agreements could also declare a default. Any losses we incur on our repurchase transactions could adversely affect our earnings and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Our use of derivative instruments and repurchase agreements may expose us to counterparty risk.

We enter into transactions to mitigate interest rate risks associated with our business with counterparties that have a high-quality credit rating or in the assessment of our management team represent an acceptable counterparty risk. If counterparties cannot perform under the terms of our futures contracts, for example, we would not receive payments due under those contracts, and may lose any unrealized gain associated with such contracts, and the mitigated liability would cease to be mitigated by such contracts. We may also be at risk for any collateral we have pledged to secure our obligations under a futures contract if the counterparty became insolvent or filed for bankruptcy. Similarly, if an interest rate cap agreement counterparty fails to perform under the terms of the interest rate cap agreement, in addition to not receiving payments due under that agreement that would offset our interest expense, we would also incur a loss for all remaining unamortized premium paid for that agreement. Our derivative instrument agreements require our counterparties to post collateral in certain events, generally related to their credit condition, to provide us some protection against their potential failure to perform. We, in turn, are subject to similar requirements. In addition, we enter into repurchase agreements to finance our target assets with certain counterparties. A failure or insolvency of any of these counterparties under such agreements could result in a loss of our collateral pledged to the counterparty or a loss of the securities that have not yet been repurchased from such counterparty, which, in either case, could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Failure to procure adequate repurchase agreement financing, including warehouse facilities which generally have short terms, or to renew or replace such financing as it matures, would adversely affect our results of operations.

We use repurchase agreement including warehouse financing as a strategy to increase the return on our investment portfolio. However, we may not be able to achieve our desired leverage ratio for a number of reasons, including if the following events occur:

Indeed, our access to financing depends on a number of factors over which we have no or little control, including:

We cannot assure you that any, or sufficient, repurchase agreement financing will continue to be available to us on terms that are acceptable to us. In recent years, investors and financial institutions that lend in the securities repurchase market and the warehouse market have tightened lending standards in response to the difficulties and changed economic conditions that have adversely affected the RMBS and mortgage market. These market disruptions have been pronounced in the Non-Agency RMBS market and loan market, and the impact has also extended to Agency RMBS, which has made the value of these assets unstable and relatively illiquid compared to prior periods. Any decline in their value, or perceived market uncertainty about their value, would make it more difficult for us to obtain financing on favorable terms, or at all, or maintain our compliance with terms of any financing arrangements then in place. Additionally, the lenders from which we may seek to obtain repurchase agreement financing may have owned or financed RMBS that have declined in value and caused the lender to suffer losses as a result of the recent downturn in the residential mortgage market. If these conditions persist, these institutions may be forced to exit the repurchase market, become insolvent or further tighten lending standards or increase the amount of equity capital or haircut required to obtain financing, and in such event, could make it more difficult for us to obtain financing on favorable terms or at all. In the event that we cannot obtain sufficient funding on acceptable terms, there may be a negative impact on the value of our equity securities and our ability to make distributions, and you may lose part or all of your investment.

In addition, in response to certain interest rate and investment environments or to changes in market liquidity, we could adopt a strategy of reducing our leverage by selling assets or not reinvesting principal payments as RMBS amortize or prepay, thereby decreasing the outstanding amount of our related borrowings. Such a strategy could reduce interest income, interest expense and net income, the extent of which would be dependent on the level of reduction in assets and liabilities, as well as the sale prices for which the assets were sold.

While the overall financing environment has remained relatively stable over the last 12 months, further credit losses or mergers, acquisitions or bankruptcies of investment banks and commercial banks that have historically acted as repurchase agreement counterparties may occur. This would result in a fewer number of potential repurchase agreement counterparties operating in the market and could potentially impact the pricing and availability of financing for our business.

Furthermore, because we rely primarily on short-term borrowings, our ability to achieve our investment objective will depend not only on our ability to borrow money in sufficient amounts and on favorable terms, but also on our ability to renew or replace on a continuous basis our maturing short-term borrowings. If we are not able to renew or replace maturing borrowings, we will have to sell some or all of our assets, possibly under adverse market conditions. In addition, if the regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders change, as they are expected to under the Basel III standards adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, they may be required to significantly increase the cost of the financing that they provide to us. Our lenders also may revise their eligibility requirements for the types of assets they are willing to finance or the terms of such financings, based on, among other factors, the regulatory environment and their management of perceived risk, particularly with respect to assignee liability.

Our repurchase agreement financing may require us to provide additional collateral and may restrict us from leveraging our assets as fully as desired.

We use repurchase agreements, including warehouse facilities, to finance acquisitions of RMBS, Multi-Family MBS, residential mortgage loans, MSRs and other mortgage related investments. If the market value of the asset pledged or sold by us to a financing institution pursuant to a repurchase agreement declines, we may be required by the financing 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, which could result in defaults. Posting additional collateral to support our credit will reduce our liquidity and limit our ability to leverage our assets, which could adversely affect our business. In the event we do not have sufficient liquidity to meet such requirements, financing institutions can accelerate repayment of our indebtedness, increase interest rates, liquidate our collateral or terminate our ability to borrow. Such a situation would likely result in a rapid deterioration of our financial condition and possibly necessitate a filing for bankruptcy protection.

Further, financial institutions providing the repurchase facilities may require us to maintain a certain amount of cash uninvested or to set aside non-levered assets sufficient to maintain a specified liquidity position which would allow us to satisfy our collateral obligations. As a result, we may not be able to leverage our assets as fully as we would choose, which could reduce our return on equity. If we are unable to meet these collateral obligations, our financial condition could deteriorate rapidly.

Lenders generally require us to enter into restrictive covenants relating to our operations.

When we obtain financing, lenders typically impose restrictions on us that would affect our ability to incur additional debt, our capability to make distributions to stockholders and our flexibility to determine our operating policies. Loan documents we execute may contain negative covenants that limit, among other things, our ability to repurchase stock, distribute more than a certain amount of our funds from operations and employ leverage beyond certain amounts.

Our inability to meet certain financial covenants related to our repurchase agreements could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results.

In connection with certain of our repurchase agreements, we are required to maintain certain financial covenants with respect to our net worth, the most restrictive of which requires that, on the last day of any fiscal quarter, our total stockholders’ equity shall not be less than the greater of (1) $75,000,000 or (2) 50% of the highest stockholders equity on the last day of the preceding eight fiscal quarters. Compliance with these financial covenants will depend on market factors and the strength of our business and operating results. Various risks, uncertainties and events beyond our control could affect our ability to comply with our financial covenants. Failure to comply with our financial covenants could result in an event of default, termination of the repurchase facility and acceleration of all amounts owing under the repurchase facility and gives the counterparty the right to exercise certain other remedies under the repurchase agreement, including the sale of the asset subject to repurchase at the time of default, unless we were able to negotiate a waiver. Any such waiver could be conditioned on an amendment to the repurchase facility and any related guaranty agreement on terms that may be unfavorable to us. If we are unable to negotiate a covenant waiver or replace or refinance our assets under a new repurchase facility on favorable terms or at all, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected.

Our rights under repurchase agreements may be subject to the effects of the bankruptcy laws in the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of us or our counterparties under the repurchase agreements.

In the event of our insolvency or bankruptcy, certain repurchase agreements may qualify for special treatment under Title 11 of the United States Code, as amended, or the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the effect of which, among other things, would be to allow the lender under the applicable repurchase agreement to avoid the automatic stay provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and to take possession of and liquidate the assets that we have pledged under their repurchase agreements. In the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of a lender during the term of a repurchase agreement, the lender may be permitted, under applicable insolvency laws, to repudiate the contract, and our claim against the lender for damages may be treated simply as an unsecured creditor. In addition, if the lender is a broker or dealer subject to the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, or an insured depository institution subject to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, our ability to exercise our rights to recover our securities under a repurchase agreement or to be compensated for any damages resulting from the lender’s insolvency may be further limited by those statutes. These claims would be subject to significant delay and, if and when received, may be substantially less than the damages we actually incur.

An increase in our borrowing costs relative to the interest that we receive on investments in RMBS, Multi-Family MBS residential mortgage loans, MSRs and other mortgage related investments may adversely affect our profitability and cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

As our financings mature, we will be required either to enter into new borrowings or to sell certain of our investments. An increase in short-term interest rates at the time that we seek to enter into new borrowings would reduce the spread between our returns on our assets and the cost of our borrowings. This would adversely affect our returns on our assets, which might reduce earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

If a counterparty to one of our swap agreements or TBAs defaults on its obligations, we may incur losses.

If a counterparty to one of the swap agreements or TBAs that we enter into defaults on its obligations under the agreement, we may not receive payments due under the agreement, and thus, we may lose any unrealized gain associated with the agreement. If any such swap agreement hedged a liability, such liability could cease to be hedged upon the default of a counterparty. Additionally, we may also risk the loss of any collateral we have pledged to secure our obligations under a swap agreement if the counterparty becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy.

Clearing facilities or exchanges upon which some of our hedging instruments are traded may increase margin requirements on our hedging instruments in the event of adverse economic developments.

In response to events having or expected to have adverse economic consequences or which create market uncertainty, clearing facilities or exchanges upon which some of our hedging instruments are traded may require us to post additional collateral against our hedging instruments. For example, in response to the U.S. approaching its debt ceiling without resolution and the federal government shutdown in October 2013, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange announced that it would increase margin requirements by 12% for all over-the-counter interest rate swap portfolios that its clearinghouse guaranteed. This increase was subsequently rolled back shortly thereafter upon the news that Congress passed legislation to temporarily suspend the national debt ceiling, reopened the federal government, and provided a time period for broader negotiations concerning federal budgetary issues. In the event that future adverse economic developments or market uncertainty (including those due to governmental, regulatory, or legislative action or inaction) result in increased margin requirements for our hedging instruments, it could adversely affect our liquidity position, business, financial condition and results of operations.

We enter into hedging transactions that expose us to contingent liabilities in the future, which may adversely affect our financial results or cash available for distribution to stockholders.

We engage in hedging transactions intended to hedge various risks to our portfolio, including the exposure to adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity varies in scope based on, among other things, the level and volatility of interest rates, the type of assets held and other changing market conditions. Although these transactions are intended to reduce our exposure to various risks, hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, there are no current limitations on the hedging transactions that we may undertake. However, our Manager’s reliance on the CFTC’s December 7, 2012 no action letter relieving CPOs of mortgage REITs from the obligation to register with the CFTC as CPOs depends on the satisfaction of several conditions, including that we comply with additional limitations on our hedging activity. The letter limits the initial margin and premiums required to establish our Manager’s commodity interest positions to no more than 5% of the fair market value of our total assets and limits the net income derived annually from our commodity interest positions that are not qualifying hedging transactions to less than 5% of our gross income.

Therefore, our and our Manager’s reliance on this no action letter places additional restrictions on our hedging activity. Our hedging transactions could require us to fund large cash payments in certain circumstances (e.g., the early termination of the hedging instrument caused by an event of default or other early termination event or a demand by a counterparty that we make increased margin payments). Our ability to fund these obligations will depend on the liquidity of our assets and access to capital at the time. The need to fund these obligations could adversely affect our financial condition. Further, hedging transactions, which are intended to limit losses, may actually result in losses, which would adversely affect our earnings and could in turn reduce cash available for distribution to stockholders.

Hedging instruments involve various kinds of risk because they are not always traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearinghouse or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. The CFTC is still in the process of proposing rules under the Dodd-Frank Act that may make our hedging more difficult or increase our costs. Furthermore, the enforceability of agreements underlying hedging transactions may depend on compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. The business failure of a hedging counterparty will most likely result in its default. Default by a hedging counterparty may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to cover our commitments, if any, at the then current market price. Although we generally seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging positions, it may not always be possible to dispose of or close out a hedging position without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to enter into an offsetting contract in order to cover our risk. We cannot assure you that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and we may be required to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in losses.

Hedging against interest rate exposure may adversely affect our earnings, which could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders, and such transactions may fail to protect us from the losses that they were designed to offset.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act, we employ techniques that limit the adverse effects of rising interest rates on a portion of our short-term repurchase agreements and on a portion of the value of our assets. In general, our interest rate risk mitigation strategy depend on our view of our entire portfolio, consisting of assets, liabilities and derivative instruments, in light of prevailing market conditions. We could misjudge the condition of our portfolio or the market. Our interest rate risk mitigation activity vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates and principal repayments, the type of securities held and other changing market conditions. Our actual interest rate risk mitigation decisions are determined in light of the facts and circumstances existing at the time and may differ from our currently anticipated strategy. These techniques may include purchasing or selling futures contracts, entering into interest rate swap, interest rate cap or interest rate floor agreements, swaptions, purchasing put and call options on securities or securities underlying futures contracts, or entering into forward rate agreements.

Because a mortgage borrower typically has no restrictions on when a loan may be paid off either partially or in full, there are no perfect interest rate risk mitigation strategies, and interest rate risk mitigation may fail to protect us from loss. Alternatively, we may fail to properly assess a risk to our portfolio or may fail to recognize a risk entirely leaving us exposed to losses without the benefit of any offsetting interest rate mitigation activities. The derivative instruments we select may not have the effect of reducing our interest rate risk. The nature and timing of interest rate risk mitigation transactions may influence the effectiveness of these strategies. Poorly designed strategies or improperly executed transactions could actually increase our risk and losses. In addition, interest rate risk mitigation activities could result in losses if the event against which we mitigate does not occur.

Changes in regulations relating to swaps activities may cause us to limit our swaps activity or subject us to additional disclosure, recordkeeping, and other regulatory requirements.

The enforceability of agreements underlying hedging transactions may depend on compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. New regulations have been promulgated by U.S. and foreign regulators to strengthen oversight of derivative contracts. Any actions taken by regulators could constrain our strategy and could increase our costs, either of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our results may experience greater fluctuations by not electing hedge accounting treatment on the derivatives that we enter into.

We have elected to not qualify for hedge accounting treatment under ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging, for our current derivative instruments. The economics of our derivative hedging transactions are not affected by this election; however, our GAAP earnings may be subject to greater fluctuations from period to period as a result of this accounting treatment for changes in fair value of certain interest rate swap agreements or for the accounting of the underlying hedged assets or liabilities in our financial statements, if it does not necessarily match the accounting used for interest rate swap agreements.

Our adoption of fair value option accounting could result in income statement volatility, which in turn, could cause significant market price and trading volume fluctuations for our securities.

We have determined that the securitization trusts that have issued certain of our Multi-Family MBS and Non-Agency RMBS are variable interest entities, or VIEs, of which we are the primary beneficiary, and elected the fair value option on the assets and liabilities held within these securitization trusts. As a result, we are required to consolidate the underlying multi-family and residential mortgage loans or securities, as applicable, related debt, interest income and interest expense of the securitization trusts in our financial statements, although our actual investment in these securitization trusts generally represents a small percentage of the total assets of the trusts. We historically accounted for the Multi-Family MBS and Non-Agency RMBS in our investment portfolio through other comprehensive income, pursuant to which unrealized gains and losses on those MBS were reflected as an adjustment to stockholders’ equity. The fair value option, however, requires that changes in valuations in the assets and liabilities of those VIEs of which we are the primary beneficiary be reflected through our consolidated earnings. As we continue to acquire subordinate Non-Agency RMBS and additional Multi-Family MBS assets in the future that are similar in structure and form to the those already acquired, we may be required to consolidate the assets and liabilities of the issuing or securitization trusts and would expect to elect the fair value option for those assets. Because of this, our earnings may experience greater volatility in the future as a decline in the fair value of the assets of any VIE that we consolidate in our financial statements could reduce both our earnings and stockholders’ equity, which in turn, could cause significant market price and trading volume fluctuations for our securities.

Securitizations expose us to additional risks including financing risks.

In our securitizations, we sell a pool of mortgage loan assets to a special purpose vehicle, the issuing entity, and the issuing entity issues one or more classes of non-recourse notes or pass through certificates pursuant to the terms of an indenture or a pooling and servicing agreement. The notes or certificates are secured by the pool of mortgage loan assets. In exchange for the transfer of assets to the issuing entity, we receive the cash proceeds of the sale of notes or certificates and a 100% interest in the equity of the issuing entity.

We bear the risk that we may not be able to obtain new short-term facilities or may not be able to renew any short-term facilities after they expire should we need more time to seek and acquire sufficient eligible assets or securities for a securitization. In addition, conditions in the capital markets may make the issuance of any such securitization less attractive to us even when we do have sufficient eligible assets or securities. While we retain and expect to retain the unrated equity component of securitizations and, therefore, still have exposure to any investments included in such securitizations, our inability to enter into such securitizations may increase our overall exposure to risks associated with direct ownership of such investments, including the risk of default. Additionally, the securitization of our target assets might magnify our exposure to losses on those target assets because any equity interest we retain in the issuing entity would be subordinate to the more senior notes or certificates issued to investors and we would, therefore, absorb all of the losses sustained with respect to a securitized pool of assets before the owners of the notes or the certificates experience any losses. An inability to securitize our portfolio may adversely affect our performance and our ability to grow our business.

Our inability to refinance any short-term facilities would also increase our risk because borrowings thereunder would likely be recourse to us as an entity. If we are unable to obtain and renew short-term facilities or to consummate securitizations to finance our investments on a long-term basis, we may be required to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at an inopportune time or price.

Moreover, we cannot be assured that we will be able to access the securitization market, or be able to do so at favorable rates. The inability to securitize certain of our target assets could hurt our performance and our ability to grow our business.

We may be exposed to environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title.

In the course of our business, we may take title to real estate, and, if we do take title, we could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these properties. In such a circumstance, we may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or we may be required to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. If we ever become subject to significant environmental liabilities, our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected.

Risks Associated with Our Relationship with Our Manager

Our board of directors has approved very broad investment guidelines for our Manager and will not approve each investment and financing decision made by our Manager.

Our Manager is authorized to follow very broad investment guidelines. Our board of directors periodically reviews and updates our investment guidelines and also reviews our investment portfolio but does not review or approve specific investments. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, our board of directors may rely primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Furthermore, our Manager may use complex strategies, and transactions entered into by our Manager may be costly, difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our board of directors. Our Manager will have great latitude within the broad parameters of our investment guidelines in determining the types and amounts of RMBS, Multi-Family MBS, residential mortgage loans, MSRs and other mortgage related investments it may decide are attractive investments for us, which could result in investment returns that are substantially below expectations or that result in losses, which would adversely affect our business operations and results. In addition, our Manager may invest in any investment on our behalf without restriction as to the dollar amount of such investment and without prior approval of our board of directors. Our Manager is generally permitted to invest our assets in its discretion, provided that such investments comply with our investment guidelines. Our Manager’s failure to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns on an investment which represents a significant dollar amount would adversely affect us. Further, decisions made and investments and financing arrangements entered into by our Manager may not fully reflect the best interests of our stockholders.

There are conflicts of interest in our relationship with our Manager that could result in decisions that are not in the best interests of our stockholders.

We are subject to conflicts of interest arising out of our relationship with our Manager. All of our officers are officers of our Manager. Our management agreement with our Manager was negotiated between related parties and its terms, including fees and other amounts payable, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated at arm’s length with an unaffiliated third-party.

We pay our Manager a management fee that is not tied to our performance. The management fee may not sufficiently incentivize our Manager to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for us. This could hurt both our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and the market price of our equity securities. Furthermore, the compensation payable to our Manager will increase as a result of future issuances of our equity securities, including issuances upon exercise of the warrants, even if the issuances are dilutive to existing stockholders.

We are dependent on our Manager and its key personnel for our success.

We have no separate facilities and are completely reliant on our Manager. All of our officers are officers of our Manager. Our Manager has significant discretion as to the implementation of our investment and operating policies and strategies. Accordingly, we believe that our success will depend to a significant extent upon the efforts, experience, diligence, skill and network of business contacts of the officers and key personnel of our Manager. The officers and key personnel of our Manager evaluate, negotiate, close and monitor our investments; therefore, our success will depend on their continued service. The departure of any of the officers or key personnel of our Manager could have a material adverse effect on our performance. In addition, there can be no assurance that our Manager will remain our investment manager or that we will continue to have access to our Manager’s officers and professionals. The initial term of our management agreement with our Manager only extends until May 16, 2014, with automatic one-year renewals thereafter. If the management agreement is terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage us, we may not be able to execute our business plan.

The management agreement with our Manager was not negotiated on an arm’s-length basis and may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third-party and may be costly and difficult to terminate, including for our Manager’s poor performance.

Our management agreement with our Manager was negotiated between related parties and its terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third-party.

Termination of the management agreement with our Manager without cause, including for our Manager’s poor performance, is difficult and costly. The management agreement may be terminated annually upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors based upon: (1) our Manager’s unsatisfactory performance that is materially detrimental to us; or (2) our determination that any fees payable to our Manager are not fair, subject to our Manager’s right to prevent termination based on unfair fees by accepting a reduction of management fees agreed to by at least two-thirds of our independent directors. We will provide our Manager 180 days prior notice of any such termination. Unless terminated for cause, we will pay our Manager a termination fee equal to three times the average annual management fee earned by our Manager during the prior 24-month period immediately preceding such termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter before the date of termination. This provision increases the effective cost to us of electing not to renew, or defaulting in our obligations under, the management agreement, thereby adversely affecting our inclination to end our relationship with our Manager, even if we believe our Manager’s performance is not satisfactory.

Our Manager is only contractually committed to serve us until May 16, 2016 and our management agreement is automatically renewable for one-year terms; provided, however, that our Manager may terminate the management agreement annually upon 180 days prior notice. If the management agreement is terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage us, we may not be able to execute our business plan.

Our Manager’s liability is limited under the management agreement and we have agreed to indemnify our Manager and its affiliates against certain liabilities. As a result, we could experience poor performance or losses for which our Manager would not be liable.

Pursuant to the management agreement, our Manager does not assume any responsibility other than to render the services called for thereunder and will not be responsible for any action of our board of directors in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. Our Manager maintains a contractual as opposed to a fiduciary relationship with us, although our officers who are also employees of our Manager will have a fiduciary duty to us under the Maryland General Corporation Law, or the MGCL, as our officers. Under the terms of the management agreement, our Manager, its officers, members, managers, directors, personnel, any person controlling or controlled by our Manager and any person providing sub-advisory services to our Manager will not be liable to us, our directors, our stockholders or any partners for acts or omissions performed in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement, except because of acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of their duties under the management agreement, as determined by a final non-appealable order of a court of competent jurisdiction. In addition, we have agreed to indemnify our Manager, its officers, stockholders, members, managers, directors, personnel, any person controlling or controlled by our Manager and any person providing sub-advisory services to our Manager with respect to all expenses, losses, damages, liabilities, demands, charges and claims arising from acts of our Manager not constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of duties, performed in good faith in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement. As a result, we could experience poor performance or losses for which our Manager would not be liable.

Our Manager’s management fee is payable regardless of our performance.

We pay our Manager a management fee regardless of the performance of our portfolio. Our Manager’s entitlement to non-performance-based compensation might reduce its incentive to devote its time and effort to seeking assets that provide attractive risk-adjusted returns for our portfolio. This in turn could hurt both our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and the market price of our equity securities.

Our Manager is subject to extensive regulation as an investment adviser, which could adversely affect its ability to manage our business.

Our Manager is an investment adviser registered with the SEC and is subject to regulation by various regulatory authorities that are charged with protecting the interests of its clients, including us. Our Manager could be subject to civil liability, criminal liability or sanction, including revocation (after it has registered) or denial of its registration as an investment adviser, revocation of the licenses of its employees, censures, fines or temporary suspension or permanent bar from conducting business, if it is found to have violated any of laws or regulations applicable to it. Any such liability or sanction could adversely affect its ability to manage our business.

Risks Related to Our Securities

The market price and trading volume of our securities may vary substantially.

Our common stock is listed on the NYSE under the symbol “OAKS.” Our Series A Preferred Stock is listed on the NYSE under the symbol “OAKS PrA.” Stock markets, including the NYSE, have experienced significant price and volume fluctuations over the past several years. As a result, the market price of our securities has been and is likely to continue to be similarly volatile, and investors in our securities have experienced since the initial offering of our securities and may continue to experience a decrease in the value of their securities. Accordingly, no assurance can be given as to the ability of our stockholders to sell their securities or the price that our stockholders may obtain for their securities.

Some of the factors that negatively affect the market price of our securities include:

Market factors unrelated to our performance could negatively impact the market price of our securities, and broad market fluctuations could also negatively impact the market price of our securities.

Market factors unrelated to our performance could negatively impact the market price of our securities. One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our securities is our distribution rate as a percentage of our stock price relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective investors may demand a higher distribution rate or seek alternative investments paying higher distributions or interest. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and conditions in the capital markets can affect the market value of our securities. In addition, the stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market price of many companies in industries similar or related to ours and that have been unrelated to these companies’ operating performances. These broad market fluctuations could reduce the market price of our securities. Furthermore, our operating results and prospects may be below the expectations of public market analysts and investors or may be lower than those of companies with comparable market capitalizations, which could lead to a material decline in the market price of our securities.

The performance of our securities may be affected by the performance of our investments, which may be speculative and aggressive compared to other types of investments.

The investments we make in accordance with our investment objectives may result in a greater amount of risk as compared to alternative investment options, including relatively higher risk of volatility or loss of principal. Our investments may be speculative and aggressive, and therefore an investment in our securities may not be suitable for someone with lower risk tolerance.

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell shares of our securities is our distribution rate as a percentage of the trading price of our securities relative to market interest rates and distribution rates of our competitors. If the market price of our securities is based primarily on the earnings and return that we derive from our investments and income with respect to our investments and our related distributions to stockholders, and not from the market value of the investments themselves, then interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions are likely to affect adversely the market price of our securities. For instance, if market rates rise without an increase in our distribution rate, the market price of our securities could decrease as potential investors may require a higher distribution yield on our securities or seek other securities paying higher distributions or interest. In addition, rising interest rates would result in increased interest expense on our variable rate debt, thereby reducing cash flow and our ability to service our indebtedness and make distributions to our stockholders.

An increase in interest rates may have an adverse effect on the market price of our stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell shares of our stock is our dividend rate, or our future expected dividend rate, 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 investment paying higher dividends or interest. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions can affect the market price of our stock independent of the effects such conditions may have on our portfolio.

We have not established a minimum distribution payment level on our common stock and we cannot assure you of our ability to make distributions in the future, or that our board of directors will not reduce distributions in the future regardless of such ability.

We intend to continue to announce in advance monthly dividends to be paid during each calendar quarter. If substantially all of our taxable income has not been paid by the close of any calendar year, we intend to declare a special dividend to holders of our common stock prior to September 15th of the following year, to achieve this result. On December 16, 2015, we announced that our board of directors declared monthly cash dividend rates for the first quarter of 2016 of $0.06 per share of common stock for the months of January, February and March.

Even though our board of directors has declared these dividends, we have not established a minimum distribution payment level on our common stock and our ability to make distributions may be adversely affected by the risk factors described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. All distributions to our common stockholders will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our earnings, our financial condition, maintenance of our REIT status and such other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time. There can be no assurance of our ability to make distributions to our common stockholders, or that our board of directors will not determine to reduce such distributions, in the future. In addition, some of our distributions to our common stockholders may continue to include a return of capital.

We may not be able to pay dividends or other distributions on the Series A Preferred Stock.

Under Maryland law, no distributions on capital stock may be made if, after giving effect to the distribution, (1) the corporation would not be able to pay the indebtedness of the corporation as such indebtedness becomes due in the usual course of business or, (2) except in certain limited circumstances when distributions are made from net earnings, the corporation’s total assets would be less than the sum of the corporation’s total liabilities plus, unless the charter provides otherwise (which our charter does, with respect to the Series A Preferred Stock), the amount that would be needed, if the corporation were to be dissolved at the time of the distribution, to satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of stockholders whose preferential rights on dissolution are superior to those receiving the distribution. There can be no guarantee that we will have sufficient cash to pay dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock. In addition, payment of our dividends depends upon our earnings, our financial condition, maintenance of our REIT qualification and other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time.

We cannot assure you that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that future borrowings will be available to us in an amount sufficient to enable us to make distributions on our securities, to pay our indebtedness or to fund our other liquidity needs.

Future offerings of debt or equity securities that rank senior to our common stock may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

If we decide to issue additional equity securities or to issue debt in the future that rank senior to our common stock, it is likely that they will be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Additionally, any convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock and may result in dilution to owners of our common stock. We and, indirectly, our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities. Because our decision to issue debt or equity securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus holders of our common stock will bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting the value of their stock holdings in us. Furthermore, the compensation payable to our Manager will increase as a result of future issuances of our equity securities even if the issuances are dilutive to existing stockholders.

The dilutive effect of future issuances of our common stock could have an adverse effect on the future market price of our common stock or otherwise adversely affect the interests of our common stockholders.

The warrants issued to XL Investments on September 29, 2012 entitle XL Investments to purchase an aggregate of 3,125,000 shares of our common stock, have an initial exercise price equal to 105% of the $15.00 IPO price per share of our common stock (subject to adjustment and limitation on exercise in certain circumstances), became exercisable on July 25, 2013 (120 days following the closing of our IPO) and are exercisable for seven years after the date of the warrants’ issuance. The exercise of the warrants in the future would be dilutive to holders of our common stock if our book value per share or the market price of our common stock is higher than the exercise price at the time of exercise. The potential for dilution from the warrants could have an adverse effect on the future market price of our common stock.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

Maintenance of our exclusion from the Investment Company Act will impose limits on our business; we have not sought formal guidance from the staff of the SEC as to our treatment of loans in securitization trusts and there can be no assurance that the staff will not adopt a contrary interpretation which could cause us to sell material amounts of our assets and to change our investment strategy.

We conduct our business so as not to become regulated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. If we were to fall within the definition of an investment company, we would be unable to conduct our business as described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act also defines an investment company as any issuer that is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of the issuer’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Excluded from the term “investment securities,” among other things, in Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act are U.S. Government securities and securities issued by majority owned subsidiaries that are not themselves investment companies and are not relying on the exception from the definition of investment company set forth in Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act.

We conduct our business so as not to become regulated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act in reliance on the exclusion 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,” or “qualifying real estate interests,” and at least 80% of our assets in qualifying real estate interests plus “real estate-related assets.” In satisfying this 55% requirement, based on SEC staff guidance, we may treat Agency RMBS issued with respect to an underlying pool of mortgage loans in which we hold all of the certificates issued by the pool as qualifying real estate interests. Neither the SEC nor its staff has issued guidance with respect to whole pool Non-Agency RMBS. Accordingly, based on our own judgment and analysis of the SEC staff’s guidance with respect to whole pool Agency RMBS, we may also treat Non-Agency RMBS issued with respect to an underlying pool of mortgage loans in which we hold all of the certificates issued by the pool as qualifying real estate interests. We may also treat whole mortgage loans that we acquire directly as qualifying real estate interests provided that 100% of the loan is secured by real estate when we acquire it and we have the unilateral right to foreclose on the mortgage. We currently treat partial pool Agency and Non-Agency RMBS as real estate-related assets. We treat any interest rate swaps or other derivative hedging transactions we enter into as miscellaneous assets that will not exceed 20% of our total assets. We generally rely on guidance published by the SEC or its staff or on our analyses of guidance published with respect to other types of assets to determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets.

When we acquire (i) 100% of the expected loss exposure and all of the directing certificate holder’s rights in a K-Series trust; or (ii) 100% of the subordinated certificates issued by a securitization trust into which we sell loans, which certificates have the sole ability, inter alia, to foreclose against defaulting loans and have all of the interests in the trust’s expected loss disclosure; we treat the full amount of loans in the trust as qualifying real estate. When we acquire less than 100% of the subordinated certificates in a K-Series trust (and accordingly have less than 100% of the trust’s expected loss exposure), we treat our net investment amount in such trust as real estate related assets. We currently intend not to acquire subordinated certificates issued by any securitization trust into which we sell loans that cause us as holders to have the ability, inter alia, to foreclose against defaulting loans. As a result, we will treat our net investment amount in future securitization trusts as real-estate related assets, but not qualifying real estate interests, even though we may acquire 100% of such subordinated certificates issued by such trusts.

The foregoing treatments are not based on specific and particular guidance from the SEC staff. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that such treatments, particularly as to the treatment of the loans in a trust described by “(i)” or “(ii)” above as qualified real estate interests and in such amounts as described above, will continue to be appropriate. Additionally, we use our net investment amount in any K-Series trust (rather than the amount of loans in such trust) that is not described by “(i)” above when calculating whether we continue to meet the requirements of the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act. If we were required to use the aggregate face amount of loans in any such K-Series trust in making such calculation, it is likely that the exclusion would no longer be available to us given the large amount of those loans vis a vis our current and expected holdings of other qualifying real estate interests. Similarly, if we were required to use the aggregate face amount of loans in future securitization trusts where we own 100% of the subordinated certificates but do not own the rights, inter alia, to foreclose against defaulting loans, it is likely that the exclusion would no longer be available to us as the aggregate amount of the loans in such securitization trust increases over time. If the SEC or its staff determines that any of these securities are not qualifying real estate interests or real estate-related assets, adopts a contrary interpretation with respect to these securities or otherwise believes we do not satisfy the above exclusions or changes its interpretation of the above exclusions based on our methodology for calculating compliance or otherwise, we could be required to substantially restructure our activities including selling material amounts of our assets and to adopt changes to our investment strategy.

Although we monitor our portfolio for compliance with the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion periodically and prior to each acquisition and disposition, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain this exclusion.

To the extent that we elect in the future to conduct our operations through majority owned subsidiaries, such business will be conducted in such a manner as to ensure that we do not meet the definition of investment company under either Section 3(a)(1)(A) or Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act, because less than 40% of the value of our total assets on an unconsolidated basis would consist of investment securities. We intend to monitor our portfolio periodically to insure compliance with the 40% test, to the extent we have made such election. In such case, we would be a holding company which conducts business exclusively through majority owned subsidiaries and we would be engaged in the non-investment company business of our subsidiaries.

Loss of our exclusion from regulation pursuant to the Investment Company Act would adversely affect us.

On August 31, 2011, the SEC issued a concept release requesting comments to a number of matters relating to the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion from the Investment Company Act, including the nature of assets that qualify for purposes of the exclusion and whether mortgage-related REIT’s should be regulated as investment companies. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of REITs, including guidance and interpretations from the SEC or its staff regarding the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations or business. As a result of this release, the SEC or its staff may issue new interpretations of the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion causing us to change the way we conduct our businesses, including changes that may adversely affect our ability to achieve our investment objective. We may be required at times to adopt less efficient methods of financing certain of our mortgage related investments and we may be precluded from acquiring certain types of higher yielding securities. The net effect of these factors would be to lower our net interest income. If we fail to qualify for an exemption from registration as an investment company or an exclusion from the definition of an investment company, our ability to use leverage would be substantially reduced. Our businesses will be adversely affected if we fail to qualify for an exemption or exclusion from regulation under the Investment Company Act.

Our authorized but unissued shares of common and preferred stock may prevent a change in our control.

Our charter authorizes us to issue additional authorized but unissued shares of common or preferred stock. In addition, our board of directors may, without stockholder approval, amend our charter to increase the aggregate number of our shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series that we have authority to issue and classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common or preferred stock and set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares. As a result, our board of directors may establish a series of shares of common or preferred stock that could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for our shares of common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Ownership limitations may restrict change of control or business combination opportunities in which our stockholders might receive a premium for their shares.

In order for us to maintain our REIT qualification for each taxable year after 2012, during the last half of any taxable year no more than 50% in value of our outstanding capital stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals. “Individuals” for this purpose include natural persons, private foundations, some employee benefit plans and trusts, and some charitable trusts. To assist us in maintaining our qualification as a REIT and subject to certain exceptions, our charter generally prohibits any person from directly or indirectly owning more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of our capital stock or more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of our equity securities. This ownership limitation could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our equity securities might receive a premium for their shares over the then prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests. Our board of directors has granted XL Investments an exemption from the 9.8% ownership limitation. As of March 10, 2016, XL Investments, together with XL Global, Inc., owned 22.18% of our common stock (or 35.69% after giving effect to the exercise of warrants owned by XL Investments in full, which became exercisable on July 25, 2013 (120 days following the closing of our IPO)).

Certain provisions of Maryland law may limit the ability of a third-party to acquire control of our company.

Certain provisions of the MGCL may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change of control of our company that might involve a premium price for holders of our equity securities or otherwise be in their best interests.

Subject to certain limitations, provisions of the MGCL prohibit certain business combinations between us and an “interested stockholder” (defined generally as any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of our outstanding voting stock or an affiliate or associate of ours who beneficially owned 10% or more of the voting power of our then outstanding stock during the two-year period immediately prior to the date in question) or an affiliate of the interested stockholder for five years after the most recent date on which the stockholder became an interested stockholder. After the five-year period, business combinations between us and an interested stockholder or an affiliate of the interested stockholder must generally either provide a minimum price to our stockholders (as defined in the MGCL) in the form of cash or other consideration in the same form as previously paid by the interested stockholder or be recommended by our board of directors and approved by the affirmative vote of at least 80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of our outstanding shares of voting stock and at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by stockholders other than the interested stockholder and its affiliates and associates. These provisions of the MGCL relating to business combinations do not apply, however, to business combinations that are approved or exempted by our board of directors prior to the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. Pursuant to the statute, our board of directors has by resolution exempted business combinations between us and any member of the XL group of companies, the parent of which is XL Group plc. Consequently, the five-year prohibition and the supermajority vote requirements will not apply to business combinations with the XL group of companies. As a result, the members of the XL group of companies may be able to enter into business combinations with us that may not be in the best interest of our stockholders without compliance by us with the supermajority vote requirements and other provisions of the statute. However, our board of directors may repeal or modify this exemption at any time in the future, in which case the applicable provisions of this statute will become applicable to business combinations between us and the XL group of companies. In addition, pursuant to the statute, our board of directors has by resolution irrevocably exempted the issuance of shares of common stock to any member of the XL group of companies in connection with the exercise of the warrants issued to XL Investments on September 29, 2012 by any member of the XL group of companies.

The “control share” provisions of the MGCL provide that holders of “control shares” of a Maryland corporation (defined as shares which, when aggregated with other shares controlled by the stockholder (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy), entitle the stockholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a “control share acquisition” (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of ownership or control of “control shares”) have no voting rights with respect to such shares except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding votes entitled to be cast by the acquiror of control shares, our officers and our employees who are also our directors. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of shares of our stock. There can be no assurance that this provision will not be amended or eliminated at any time in the future.

Additionally, Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL permits our board of directors, without stockholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our charter or bylaws, to elect to be subject to certain provisions relating to corporate governance that may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change of control of our company that might involve a premium to the market price of our equity securities or otherwise be in our stockholders’ best interests. Upon the completion of our IPO, we became subject to some of these provisions, either by provisions of our charter and bylaws unrelated to Subtitle 8 or by reason of an election in our charter to be subject to certain provisions of Subtitle 8.

Stockholders have limited control over changes in our policies and operations.

Our board of directors determines our major policies, including with regard to financing, growth, debt capitalization, REIT qualification and distributions. Our board of directors may amend or revise these and other policies without a vote of the stockholders. Under our charter and the MGCL, our common stockholders generally have a right to vote only on the following matters:

All other matters are subject to the discretion of our board of directors.

Our charter contains provisions that make removal of our directors difficult, which could make it difficult for stockholders to effect changes in management.

Our charter provides that, subject to the rights of any series of preferred stock, a director may be removed only by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of directors. Our charter and bylaws provide that vacancies generally may be filled only by a majority of the remaining directors in office, even if less than a quorum. These requirements make it more difficult to change management by removing and replacing directors and may prevent a change in control that is in the best interests of stockholders.

Our rights and stockholders’ rights to take action against directors and officers are limited, which could limit recourse in the event of actions not in the best interests of stockholders.

As permitted by Maryland law, our charter eliminates the liability of our directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages, except for liability resulting from:

In addition, our charter requires us, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, to indemnify and, without requiring a preliminary determination of the ultimate entitlement to indemnification, pay or reimburse reasonable expenses in advance of final disposition of a proceeding to any individual who is a present or former director or officer and who is made or threatened to be made a party to the proceeding by reason of his or her service in that capacity or any individual who, while a director or officer and at our request, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, trustee of another corporation, REIT, partnership, joint venture, trust, employee benefit plan or any other enterprise and who is made or threatened to be made a party to the proceeding by reason of his or her service in that capacity. As part of these indemnification obligations, we may be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers.

We also are permitted to purchase and maintain insurance or provide similar protection on behalf of any directors, officers, employees and agents, including our Manager and its affiliates, against any liability asserted which was incurred in any such capacity with us or arising out of such status. This may result in us having to expend significant funds, which will reduce the available cash for distribution to our stockholders.

We have made, and in the future may make, distributions of offering proceeds, borrowings or the sale of assets to the extent that distributions exceed earnings or cash flow from our operations

We have made, and in the future may make, distributions of offering proceeds, borrowings or the sale of assets to the extent that distributions exceed earnings or cash flow from our operations. Such distributions reduce the amount of cash we have available for investing and other purposes and could be dilutive to our financial results. In addition, funding our distributions from our net proceeds may constitute a return of capital to our investors, which would have the effect of reducing each stockholder’s basis in its shares of equity securities.

Because of its significant ownership of our common stock, XL Investments has the ability to influence the outcome of matters that require a vote of our stockholders, including a change of control.

XL Investments holds a significant interest in our outstanding common stock. As of March 10, 2016, XL Investments, together with XL Global, Inc., owned 22.18% of our common stock (or 35.90% after giving effect to the exercise of warrants owned by XL Investments in full, which became exercisable on July 25, 2013 (120 days following the closing of our IPO)). As a result, XL Investments potentially has the ability to influence the outcome of matters that require a vote of our stockholders, including election of our board of directors and other corporate transactions, regardless of whether others believe that the transaction is in our best interests. We have agreed with XL Investments that, for so long as XL Investments and any other of the XL group of companies collectively beneficially owns at least 9.8% of our issued and outstanding common stock (on a fully diluted basis), XL Investments will have the right to appoint an observer to attend all board meetings, but such observer will have no right to vote at any board meeting. Furthermore, as of March 10, 2016, XL Global, an affiliate of XL Investments, owns an additional 8,175 shares of our common stock and has a 34.6% equity interest in our Manager and representatives of XL Global are members of the management committee of our Manager. The investment management professionals of our Manager are solely responsible for all decisions involving the acquisition, disposition, financing and hedging of our target assets. None of the XL group of companies nor any of their officers, directors or employees participate in these decisions.

We are an “emerging growth company” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make it more difficult for you to evaluate an investment in our company and may make our equity securities less attractive to investors.

In April 2012, President Obama signed into law the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or the JOBS Act. The JOBS Act contains provisions that, among other things, relax certain reporting requirements for “emerging growth companies,” including certain requirements relating to accounting standards and compensation disclosure. We are classified as an emerging growth company. For as long as we are an emerging growth company, which may be up to December 31, 2018, unlike other public companies, we will not be required to (1) provide an auditor’s attestation report on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of our system of internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (2) comply with any new or revised financial accounting standards applicable to public companies until such standards are also applicable to private companies under Section 102(b)(1) of the JOBS Act, (3) comply with any new requirements adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or the PCAOB, requiring mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report in which the auditor would be required to provide additional information about the audit and the financial statements of the issuer, (4) comply with any new audit rules adopted by the PCAOB after April 5, 2012 unless the SEC determines otherwise, (5) provide certain disclosure regarding executive compensation required of larger public companies or (6) hold shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation. We cannot predict if investors will find our equity securities less attractive because we have chosen to rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our equity securities less attractive as a result of any choices to reduce future disclosure, there may be a less active trading market for our equity securities and the stock price of our equity securities may be more volatile.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have elected to take advantage of such extended transition period. Since we will not be required to comply with new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards are required for other public companies, our financial statements may not be comparable to the financial statements of companies that comply with public company effective dates. Our election is irrevocable pursuant to Section 107 of the JOBS Act.

The JOBS Act allows us to postpone the date by which we must comply with certain laws and regulations intended to protect investors and to reduce the amount of information we have provided to you in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which may have an adverse effect on the trading price of our equity securities.

The JOBS Act is intended to reduce the regulatory burden on “emerging growth companies.” As defined in the JOBS Act, a public company whose initial public offering of common equity securities occurred after December 8, 2011 and whose annual gross revenues are less than $1.0 billion will, in general, qualify as an “emerging growth company” until the earliest of:

Under this definition, we are an “emerging growth company” and could remain an emerging growth company until as late as December 31, 2018. The market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates was $94.8 million at June 30, 2015.

As a result, this Annual Report on Form 10-K includes less information about us than would otherwise be required if we were not an “emerging growth company,” which may make it more difficult for you to evaluate an investment in our company. We have elected to take advantage of some or all of the reduced regulatory and reporting requirements applicable to reports and proxy statements that we file with the SEC in the future, which will be available to us so long as we qualify as an “emerging growth company,” including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. Among other things, this means that our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to provide an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting so long as we qualify as an emerging growth company, which may increase the risk that material weaknesses or other deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting go undetected. So long as we qualify as an “emerging growth company,” we may elect not to provide you with certain information, including certain financial information and certain information regarding compensation of our executive officers, that we would otherwise have been required to provide in filings we make with the SEC, which may make it more difficult for investors and securities analysts to evaluate our company. As a result, investor confidence in our company and the market price of our equity securities may be adversely affected.

We are subject to financial reporting and other requirements for which our accounting, internal audit and other management systems and resources may not be adequately prepared.

We are subject to reporting and other obligations under the Exchange Act, including the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These reporting and other obligations may place significant demands on our management, administrative, operational, internal audit and accounting resources and cause us to incur significant expenses. We may need to upgrade our systems or create new systems, implement additional financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures, expand or outsource our internal audit function and hire additional accounting, internal audit and finance staff. If we are unable to accomplish these objectives in a timely and effective fashion, our ability to comply with the financial reporting requirements and other rules that apply to reporting companies could be impaired. Any failure to maintain effective internal controls could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We are required to make critical accounting estimates and judgments, and our financial statements may be materially affected if our estimates or judgments prove to be inaccurate.

Financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP require the use of estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts. Different estimates, judgments and assumptions reasonably could be used that would have a material effect on our financial statements, and changes in these estimates, judgments and assumptions are likely to occur from period to period in the future. Significant areas of accounting requiring the application of management’s judgment include, but are not limited to (1) determining the fair value of our investments, (2) assessing the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses or credit reserves and (3) appropriately consolidating VIEs for which we have determined we are the primary beneficiary. These estimates, judgments and assumptions are inherently uncertain, and, if they prove to be wrong, then we face the risk that charges to income will be required. In addition, because we have limited operating history in some of these areas and limited experience in making these estimates, judgments and assumptions, the risk of future charges to income may be greater than if we had more experience in these areas. Any such charges could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies” for a discussion of the accounting estimates, judgments and assumptions that we believe are the most critical to an understanding of our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Tax Risks

If we fail to remain qualified as a REIT, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax as a regular corporation and could face a substantial tax liability, which would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We elected to be taxed as a REIT commencing with our short taxable year ended December 31, 2012, and comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code with respect thereto. Our continued qualification as a REIT will depend on our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends upon our analysis of the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we will not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to successfully manage the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, will not contend that our interests in subsidiaries or in securities of other issuers will not cause a violation of the REIT requirements.

If we were to fail to maintain our REIT qualification in any taxable year, and not to qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be subject to U.S. federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates, and dividends paid to our stockholders would not be deductible by us in computing our taxable income. Any resulting corporate tax liability could be substantial and would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders, which in turn could have an adverse impact on the value of our equity securities. Unless we were entitled to relief under certain Internal Revenue Code provisions, we also would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year in which we failed to qualify as a REIT.

Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates available for some dividends.

The maximum tax rate applicable to income from “qualified dividends” payable to U.S. stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates is 20%, exclusive of a 3.8% investment tax surcharge. Dividends payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for the reduced rates. Thus, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our equity securities.

REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan.

We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain, in order for U.S. federal-income tax not to apply to earnings that we distribute. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible 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 income tax laws. We intend to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the REIT requirements of the Internal Revenue Code.

From time to time, differences in timing between our recognition of taxable income and our actual receipt of cash may occur. If we do not have other funds available in these situations we could be required to borrow funds on unfavorable terms, sell investments at disadvantageous prices or distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt, make a taxable distribution of our shares as part of a distribution in which stockholders may elect to receive shares or (subject to certain limits) cash or use cash reserves, in order 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 U.S. federal income tax and the 4% excise tax in a particular year. These alternatives could increase our costs or reduce our equity. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to grow, which could adversely affect the value of our equity securities.

Even if we remain qualified as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain U.S. 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, and state or local income, property and transfer taxes, such as mortgage recording taxes. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forgo otherwise attractive opportunities and may require us to dispose of our target assets sooner than originally anticipated.

To maintain our qualification as a REIT, 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, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets, including certain mortgage loans and securities. The remainder of our investments (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) 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 total assets (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 25% of the value of our total assets can be represented by securities of one or more TRSs. If we fail to comply with these 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. As a result, we may be required to liquidate from our investment portfolio otherwise attractive investments. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

In addition to the asset tests set forth above, to maintain our REIT qualification we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. We may be unable to pursue investments that would be otherwise advantageous to us in order to satisfy the source-of-income or asset-diversification requirements for qualifying as a REIT. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to make certain attractive investments.

We may be required to report taxable income for certain investments in excess of the economic income we ultimately realize from them.

We may continue to acquire mortgage-backed securities in the secondary market for less than their face amount. In addition, as a result of our ownership of certain mortgage-backed securities, we may be treated for tax purposes as holding certain debt instruments acquired in the secondary market for less than their face amount. The discount at which such securities or debt instruments are acquired may reflect doubts about their ultimate collectability rather than current market interest rates. The amount of such discount will nevertheless generally be treated as “market discount” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Accrued market discount is generally reported as income when, and to the extent that, any payment of principal of the mortgage-backed security or debt instrument is made. If we collect less on the mortgage-backed security or debt instrument than our purchase price plus the market discount we had previously reported as income, we may not be able to benefit from any offsetting loss deductions.

In addition, as a result of our ownership of certain mortgage-backed securities, we may be treated for tax purposes as holding distressed debt investments that are subsequently modified by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding debt are “significant modifications” under applicable U.S. Treasury Department regulations, the modified debt may be considered to have been reissued to us at a gain in a debt-for-debt exchange with the borrower. In that event, we may be required to recognize taxable gain to the extent the principal amount of the modified debt exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified debt, even if the value of the debt or the payment expectations have not changed.

Moreover, some of the mortgage-backed securities that we acquire may have been issued with original issue discount. We will be required to report such original issue discount based on a constant yield method and will be taxed based on the assumption that all future projected payments due on such mortgage-backed securities will be made. If such mortgage-backed securities turn out not to be fully collectable, an offsetting loss deduction will become available only in the later year that uncollectability is provable.

Finally, in the event that mortgage-backed securities or any debt instruments we are treated for tax purposes as holding as a result of our investments in mortgage-backed securities are delinquent as to mandatory principal and interest payments, we may nonetheless be required to continue to recognize the unpaid interest as taxable income as it accrues, despite doubt as to its ultimate collectability. Similarly, we may be required to accrue interest income with respect to subordinate mortgage-backed securities at the stated rate regardless of whether corresponding cash payments are received or are ultimately collectable. In each case, while we would in general ultimately have an offsetting loss deduction available to us when such interest was determined to be uncollectable, the utility of that deduction could depend on our having taxable income in that later year or thereafter.

Certain apportionment rules may affect our ability to comply with the REIT asset and gross income tests.

The Internal Revenue Code provides that a regular or a residual interest in a real estate mortgage investment conduit, or REMIC, is generally treated as a real estate asset for the purpose of the REIT asset tests, and any amount includible in our gross income with respect to such an interest is generally treated as interest on an obligation secured by a mortgage on real property for the purpose of the REIT gross income tests. If, however, less than 95% of the assets of a REMIC in which we hold an interest consist of real estate assets (determined as if we held such assets), we will be treated as holding our proportionate share of the assets of the REMIC for the purpose of the REIT asset tests and receiving directly our proportionate share of the income of the REMIC for the purpose of determining the amount of income from the REMIC that is treated as interest on an obligation secured by a mortgage on real property. In connection with the recently expanded Agency RMBS-backed HARP loan program , the IRS recently issued guidance providing that, among other things, if a REIT holds a regular interest in an “eligible REMIC,” or a residual interest in an “eligible REMIC” that informs the REIT that at least 80% of the REMIC’s assets constitute real estate assets, then the REIT may treat 80% of the interest in the REMIC as a real estate asset for the purpose of the REIT income and asset tests. Although the portion of the income from such a REMIC interest that does not qualify for purposes of the REIT 75% gross income test would likely be qualifying income for the purpose of the 95% REIT gross income test, the remaining 20% of the REMIC interest generally would not qualify as a real estate asset and the income therefrom generally would not qualify for purposes of the 75% REIT gross income test, which could adversely affect our ability to satisfy the REIT income and asset tests. Accordingly, owning such a REMIC interest could adversely affect our ability to maintain our REIT qualification.

The “taxable mortgage pool” rules may increase the taxes that we or our stockholders may incur, and may limit the manner in which we effect future securitizations.

Securitizations by us or our subsidiaries could result in the creation of taxable mortgage pools for U.S. federal income tax purposes, resulting in “excess inclusion income.” As a REIT, so long as we own 100% of the equity interests in a taxable mortgage pool, we generally would not be adversely affected by the characterization of the securitization as a taxable mortgage pool. Certain categories of stockholders, however, such as non-U.S. stockholders eligible for treaty or other benefits, stockholders with net operating losses, and certain tax-exempt U.S. stockholders that are subject to unrelated business income tax, could be subject to increased taxes on a portion of their dividend income from us that is attributable to the excess inclusion income. In the case of a stockholder that is a REIT, a regulated investment company, or RIC, common trust fund or other pass-through entity, our allocable share of our excess inclusion income could be considered excess inclusion income of such entity. In addition, to the extent that our stock is owned by tax-exempt “disqualified organizations,” such as certain government-related entities and charitable remainder trusts that are not subject to tax on unrelated business income, we may incur a corporate level tax on a portion of any excess inclusion income. Because this tax generally would be imposed on us, all of our stockholders, including stockholders that are not disqualified organizations, generally would bear a portion of the tax cost associated with the classification of us or a portion of our assets as a taxable mortgage pool. A RIC, or other pass-through entity owning our stock in record name will be subject to tax at the highest U.S. federal corporate tax rate on any excess inclusion income allocated to their owners that are disqualified organizations. Moreover, we could face limitations in selling equity interests in these securitizations to outside investors, or selling any debt securities issued in connection with these securitizations that might be considered to be equity interests for tax purposes. Finally, if we were to fail to maintain our REIT qualification, any taxable mortgage pool securitizations would be treated as separate taxable corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes that could not be included in any consolidated U.S. federal income tax return. These limitations may prevent us from using certain techniques to maximize our returns from securitization transactions.

Our ability to invest in and dispose of “to be announced” securities could be limited by our election to be subject to tax as a REIT.

We purchase agency mortgage investments through TBAs and may recognize income or gains from the disposition of those TBAs, through dollar roll transactions or otherwise. There is no direct authority with respect to the qualification of TBAs as real estate assets or U.S. Government securities for purposes of the 75% asset test or the qualification of income or gains from dispositions of TBAs as gains from the sale of real property (including interests in real property and interests in mortgages on real property) or other qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, and we would not treat these items as qualifying assets or income (as the case may be) unless we receive a reasoned, written opinion (within the meaning of applicable U.S. Treasury Department regulations) of our counsel that such items should be treated as qualifying assets or income. Consequently, our ability to enter into dollar roll transactions and other dispositions of TBAs could be limited. Moreover, even if we were to receive the opinion of counsel described above, it is possible that the IRS could assert that such assets or income are not qualifying assets or income, which could cause us to fail the 75% asset test or the 75% gross income test.

The failure of securities subject to repurchase agreements to qualify as real estate assets could adversely affect our ability to maintain our REIT qualification.

We enter into financing arrangements that are structured as sale and repurchase agreements pursuant to which we would nominally sell certain of our securities to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase these securities at a later date in exchange for a purchase price. Economically, these agreements are financings which are secured by the securities sold pursuant thereto. We believe that we would be treated for REIT asset and income test purposes as the owner of the securities that are the subject of any such sale and repurchase agreement notwithstanding that such agreements may transfer record ownership of the securities to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could assert that we did not own the securities during the term of the sale and repurchase agreement, in which case we could fail to maintain our REIT qualification.

Liquidation of our assets may jeopardize our REIT qualification.

To maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must comply with requirements regarding 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.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively and may cause us to incur tax liabilities.

The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code substantially limit our ability to hedge our assets and liabilities. Under these provisions, any income from a hedging transaction we enter into to manage risk of interest rate changes with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or carry real estate assets does not constitute “gross income” for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests, if certain requirements are met. 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 REIT gross income tests.

Qualifying as a REIT involves highly technical and complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Internal Revenue Code provisions for which only limited judicial and administrative authorities exist. Even a technical or inadvertent violation could jeopardize our REIT qualification. Our qualification as a REIT will depend 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 requirements to maintain our REIT qualification 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. Thus, while we intend to continue to operate so that we will qualify as a REIT, given the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, no assurance can be given that we will maintain our qualification for any particular year.

We may incur a significant tax liability as a result of selling assets that might be subject to the prohibited transactions tax if sold directly by us.

A REIT’s net income from “prohibited transactions” is subject to a 100% tax. In general, “prohibited transactions” are sales or other dispositions of assets held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. There is a risk that certain loans that we are treating as owning for U.S. federal income tax purposes and certain property received upon foreclosure of these loans will be treated as held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. Although we expect to avoid the prohibited transactions tax by contributing those assets to one of our TRSs and conducting the marketing and sale of those assets through that TRS, no assurance can be given that the IRS will respect the transaction by which those assets are contributed to our TRS. Even if those contribution transactions are respected, our TRS will be subject to U.S. federal, state and local corporate income tax and may incur a significant tax liability as a result of those sales.

We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could reduce the market price of shares of our equity securities.

At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws or regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be changed, possibly with retroactive effect. We cannot predict if or when any new U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective or whether any such law, regulation or interpretation may take effect retroactively. We and our stockholders could be adversely affected by any such change in, or any new, U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation.

Distributions to tax-exempt investors may be classified as unrelated business taxable income, or UBTI, as defined under Section 512(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Neither ordinary nor capital gain distributions with respect to our stock nor gain from the sale of stock should generally constitute UBTI to a tax-exempt investor. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule, including: (1) part of the income and gain recognized by certain qualified employee pension trusts with respect to our stock may be treated as UBTI 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 UBTI; (2) part of the income and gain recognized by a tax-exempt investor with respect to our stock would constitute UBTI if the investor incurs debt in order to acquire the stock; (3) 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 Internal Revenue Code may be treated as UBTI; and (4) to the extent that we are (or a part of us, or a disregarded subsidiary of ours, is) a “taxable mortgage pool,” or if we hold residual interests in a REMIC, a portion of the distributions paid to a tax-exempt stockholder that is allocable to excess inclusion income may be treated as UBTI.

The value of our assets represented by our TRS is required to be limited and a failure to comply with this and certain other rules governing transactions between a REIT and its TRSs would jeopardize our REIT qualification and may result in the application of a 100% excise tax.

A REIT may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more TRSs. Other than certain activities relating to lodging and healthcare facilities, a TRS generally may engage in any business and may hold assets and earn income that would not be qualifying assets or income if held or earned directly by a REIT. Overall, no more than 25% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRSs. In addition, the TRS rules limit the deductibility of interest paid or accrued by a TRS to its parent REIT to assure that the TRS is subject to an appropriate level of corporate taxation. The rules also impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis.

Our current TRS, and any future TRSs, will pay U.S. federal, state and local income tax on their respective taxable incomes, if any. We anticipate that the aggregate value of the securities of our TRS will continue to be less than 25% of the value of our total assets (including our TRS securities). Furthermore, we intend to monitor the value of our investments in our TRS for the purpose of ensuring compliance with TRS-ownership limitations. In addition, we will review all our transactions with our TRS to ensure that they are entered into on arm’s-length terms to avoid incurring the 100% excise tax described above. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be able to continue to comply with the 25% limitation or to avoid application of the 100% excise tax discussed above.

Your investment has various U.S. federal income tax risks.

We urge you to consult your tax advisor concerning the effects of U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax laws to you with regard to an investment in shares of our stock.