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 and the various other factors identified in or incorporated by reference into any other documents filed by us with the SEC in evaluating our company and our business.  The risks discussed herein can adversely affect our business, liquidity, operating results, prospects, and financial condition.  These risks could cause the market price of our securities to decline.  The risk factors described below are not the only risks that may affect us.  Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us, or not presently deemed material by us, also may adversely affect our business, liquidity, operating results, prospects, and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Business and Our Company

Declines in the market values of assets in our investment portfolio may adversely affect periodic reported results and credit availability, which may reduce earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

The market value of the interest-bearing assets in which we invest and any related hedging instruments may move inversely with changes in interest rates. We anticipate that increases in interest rates will generally tend to decrease our net income and the market value of our interest-bearing assets.  A significant percentage of the securities within our investment portfolio are classified for accounting purposes as “available for sale.” Changes in the market values of trading securities will be reflected in earnings and changes in the market values of available for sale securities will be reflected in stockholders’ equity. As a result, a decline in market values of certain of our investment securities may reduce the book value of our assets.  Moreover, if the decline in market value of an available for sale security is other than temporary, such decline will reduce earnings.

A decline in the market value of our interest-bearing assets may adversely affect us, particularly in instances where we have borrowed money based on the market value of those assets. If the market value of those assets declines, the lender may require us to post additional collateral to support the loan, which would reduce our liquidity and limit our ability to leverage our assets. In addition, if we are, or anticipate being, unable to post the additional collateral, we would have to sell the assets at a time when we might not otherwise choose to do so. In the event that we do not have sufficient liquidity to meet such requirements, lending institutions may accelerate indebtedness, increase interest rates and terminate our ability to borrow, any of which could result in a rapid deterioration of our financial condition and cash available for distribution to our stockholders. Moreover, if we liquidate the assets at prices lower than the amortized cost of such assets, we will incur losses.

The market values of our investments may also decline without any general increase in interest rates for a number of reasons, such as increases in defaults, actual or perceived increases in voluntary prepayments for those investments that we have that are subject to prepayment risk, and widening of credit spreads. If the market values of our investments were to decline for any reason, the value of your investment could also decline.

Changes in laws and regulations affecting the relationship between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the U.S. government may adversely affect our business.

Payments on the Agency RMBS (excluding Agency IOs) in which we invest are guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises, or "GSEs," but their guarantees are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. As broadly publicized, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have experienced significant losses in recent years, causing the U.S. Government to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under federal conservatorship and to inject significant capital in these businesses. Questions regarding the continued viability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as currently structured, including the guarantees that back the RMBS issued by them, and the U.S. Government’s participation in the U.S. residential mortgage market through the GSEs, continue to persist. In February 2011, the U.S. Department of the Treasury along with the U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development released a much-awaited report titled “ Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market ”, which outlines recommendations for reforming the U.S. housing system, including reducing the roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and transforming the government’s involvement in the housing market and its relationship to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In February 2012, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, released its “Strategic Plan for Enterprise Conservatorships,” which set forth three goals for the next phase of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conservatorships, which include (i) build a new infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market, (ii) gradually reduce Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s presence in the marketplace while simplifying and shrinking their operations, and (iii) maintaining foreclosure prevention activities and credit availability for new and refinanced mortgages. In March 2013, the FHFA announced that it was creating a new entity as it reduces the roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that may serve as a foundational element of the mortgage market of the future. Since the FHFA first released its strategic plan, there have been a number of other housing finance reform proposals introduced, both from industry groups and by the U.S. Congress. The most recent bill in the U.S. Congress to receive serious consideration is the “Housing Finance Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2013.” This draft bill, among other things, would eliminate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and replace them with a new agency which would provide a financial guarantee that would only be tapped after private institutions and investors stepped in. It remains unclear whether this or any other proposals will become law or, should a proposal become law, if or how the enacted law will differ from the current draft of the bill.

As discussed above, each of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae could be dissolved and the U.S. Government could determine to stop providing liquidity support of any kind to the mortgage market. If Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae were eliminated, or their structures were to change radically or the U.S. Government significantly reduced its support for any or all of them, we may be unable or significantly limited in our ability to acquire Agency RMBS, which would drastically reduce the amount and type of Agency RMBS available for purchase which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our ability to maintain our exclusion from regulation as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. Moreover, any changes to the nature of the guarantees provided by, or laws affecting, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae could materially adversely affect the credit quality of the guarantees, could increase the risk of loss on purchases of Agency RMBS issued by these GSEs and could have broad adverse market implications for the Agency RMBS they currently guarantee and the mortgage industry generally. Any action that affects the credit quality of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae could materially adversely affect the value of the Agency RMBS and other residential mortgage-related assets that we own or seek to acquire.

In addition, we rely on our Agency RMBS as collateral for our financings under the repurchase agreements that we have entered into. 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 compliance with the terms of any financing transactions.

Difficult conditions in the mortgage and residential and commercial real estate markets have caused and may cause us to experience losses and these conditions may persist for the foreseeable future.

Our business is materially affected by conditions in the residential mortgage market, the residential and commercial real estate market, the financial markets and the economy generally. Furthermore, because a significant portion of our current assets and our targeted assets are credit sensitive, we believe the risks associated with our investments will be more acute during periods of economic slowdown or recession, especially if these periods are accompanied by declining real estate values and defaults. Continued concerns about the health of the residential and commercial mortgage markets, as well as inflation, energy costs, sovereign debt and geopolitical issues and the availability and cost of credit have contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy and markets going forward. The residential and commercial mortgage markets were adversely affected by changes in the lending landscape during the financial market crisis of 2008, the severity of which was largely unanticipated by the markets, and there is no assurance that these markets will return to prior levels or that they will not worsen again.

In addition, an economic slowdown, delayed recovery or general disruption in the mortgage markets may result in continued decreased demand for residential and commercial property, which would likely further compress homeownership rates and place additional pressure on home price performance, while forcing commercial property owners to lower rents on properties with excess supply. We believe there is a strong correlation between home price growth rates and mortgage loan delinquencies. Moreover, to the extent that a property owner has fewer tenants or receives lower rents, such property owners will generate less cash flow on their properties, which increases significantly the likelihood that such property owners will default on their debt service obligations. If the borrowers of our mortgage loans, or the loans underlying certain of our investment securities, default, we may incur losses on those loans or investment securities. Any sustained period of increased payment delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect both our net interest income and our ability to acquire our targeted assets in the future on favorable terms or at all. The further deterioration of the mortgage markets, the residential or commercial real estate markets, the financial markets and the economy generally may result in a decline in the market value of our investments or cause us to experience losses related to our assets, which may adversely affect our results of operations, the availability and cost of credit and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Interest rate mismatches between the interest-earning assets held in our investment portfolio and the borrowings used to fund the purchases of those assets may reduce our net income or result in a loss during periods of changing interest rates.

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

In addition, the RMBS and residential mortgage loans we invest in may be comprised of, ARMs that are subject to periodic and lifetime interest rate caps. Periodic interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase during any given period. Lifetime interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase over the life of the security or loan. Our borrowings typically are not subject to similar restrictions. Accordingly, in a period of rapidly increasing interest rates, the interest rates paid on our borrowings could increase without limitation while interest rate caps could limit the interest rates on the Agency ARMs or residential mortgage loans comprised of ARMs in our portfolio. This problem is magnified for securities backed by, or residential mortgage loans comprised of, ARMs and hybrid ARMs that are not fully indexed. Further, certain securities backed by, or residential mortgage loans comprised of, ARMs and hybrid ARMs may be subject to periodic payment caps that result in a portion of the interest being deferred and added to the principal outstanding. As a result, the payments we receive on Agency ARMs backed by, or residential mortgage loans comprised of, ARMs and hybrid ARMs may be lower than the related debt service costs. These factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Interest rate fluctuations will also cause variances in the yield curve, which may reduce our net income.  The relationship between short-term and longer-term interest rates is often referred to as the “yield curve.” If short-term interest rates rise disproportionately relative to longer-term interest rates (a flattening of the yield curve), our borrowing costs may increase more rapidly than the interest income earned on our interest-earning assets. For example, because the Agency RMBS in our investment portfolio typically bear interest based on longer-term rates while our borrowings typically bear interest based on short-term rates, a flattening of the yield curve would tend to decrease our net income and the market value of these securities. Additionally, to the extent cash flows from investments that return scheduled and unscheduled principal are reinvested, the spread between the yields of the new investments and available borrowing rates may decline, which would likely decrease our net income. It is also possible that short-term interest rates may exceed longer-term interest rates (a yield curve inversion), in which event our borrowing costs may exceed our interest income and we could incur significant operating losses.

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

The U.S. Government, through the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Housing Administration, or FHA, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or “FDIC," commenced implementation of programs designed to provide homeowners with assistance in avoiding residential or commercial mortgage loan foreclosures, 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 borrowers who are current on their mortgage payments to refinance and reduce their monthly mortgage payments at loan-to-value ratios up to 125% without new mortgage insurance. The programs may involve, among other things, the modification of mortgage loans to reduce the principal amount of the loans or the rate of interest payable on the loans, or to extend the payment terms of the loans.

     Loan modification and refinance programs may adversely affect the performance of Agency RMBS, non-Agency RMBS and residential mortgage loans owned by us. Residential distressed mortgage loans and non-Agency RMBS are particularly sensitive to loan modification and refinance programs, as a significant number of loan modifications with respect to a given security or pool of loans, including those related to principal forgiveness and coupon reduction, could negatively impact the realized yields and cash flows on such investments. In addition, it is also likely that loan modifications would result in increased prepayments on some RMBS and residential mortgage loans.

The U.S. Congress and various state and local legislatures are considering, and in the future may consider, legislation, which, among other provisions, would permit limited assignee liability for certain violations in the mortgage loan origination process, and would allow judicial modification of loan principal in the event of personal bankruptcy. We cannot predict whether or in what form the U.S. Congress or the various state and local legislatures may enact legislation affecting our business or whether any such legislation will require us to change our practices or make changes in our portfolio in the future. These changes, if required, could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders, particularly if we make such changes in response to new or amended laws, regulations or ordinances in any state where we acquire a significant portion of our mortgage loans, or if such changes result in us being held responsible for any violations in the mortgage loan origination process. These loan modification programs, future legislative or regulatory actions, including possible amendments to the bankruptcy laws, which 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, our assets which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Prepayment rates can change, adversely affecting the performance of our assets.

The frequency at which prepayments (including both voluntary prepayments by the borrowers and liquidations due to defaults and foreclosures) occur on the residential mortgage loans we own and those that underlie our RMBS is difficult to predict and is affected by a variety of factors, including the prevailing level of interest rates as well as economic, demographic, tax, social, legal, legislative and other factors. Generally, borrowers tend to prepay their mortgages when prevailing mortgage rates fall below the interest rates on their mortgage loans.

In general, “premium” securities (securities whose market values exceed their principal or par amounts) are adversely affected by faster-than-anticipated prepayments because the above-market coupon that such premium securities carry will be earned for a shorter period of time. Generally, “discount” securities (securities whose principal or par amounts exceed their market values) are adversely affected by slower-than-anticipated prepayments. Since many RMBS will be discount securities when interest rates are high, and will be premium securities when interest rates are low, these RMBS may be adversely affected by changes in prepayments in any interest rate environment. Although we estimate prepayment rates to determine the effective yield of our assets and valuations, these estimates are not precise and prepayment rates do not necessarily change in a predictable manner as a function of interest rate changes

The adverse effects of prepayments may impact us in various ways. First, particular investments, such as IOs, may experience outright losses in an environment of faster actual or anticipated prepayments. Second, particular investments may under-perform relative to any hedges that we may have constructed for these assets, resulting in a loss to us. In particular, prepayments (at par) may limit the potential upside of many RMBS to their principal or par amounts, whereas their corresponding hedges often have the potential for unlimited loss. Furthermore, to the extent that faster prepayment rates are due to lower interest rates, the principal payments received from prepayments will tend to be reinvested in lower-yielding assets, which may reduce our income in the long run. Therefore, if actual prepayment rates differ from anticipated prepayment rates, our business, financial condition and results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected.

Some of the commercial real estate loans we may originate or invest in may allow the borrower to make prepayments without incurring a prepayment penalty and some may include provisions allowing the borrower to extend the term of the loan beyond the originally scheduled maturity. Because the decision to prepay or extend a commercial loan is typically controlled by the borrower, we may not accurately anticipate the timing of these events, which could affect the earnings and cash flows we anticipate and could impact our ability to finance these assets.

Increased levels of prepayments on the mortgages underlying structured mortgage-backed securities, particularly IOs, might decrease net interest income or result in a net loss, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.  

When we acquire structured mortgage-backed securities, such as IOs, we anticipate that the underlying mortgages will prepay at a projected rate, generating an expected yield. When the prepayment rates on the mortgages underlying these securities are higher than expected, our returns on those securities may be materially adversely affected. For example, the value of our Agency IOs is extremely sensitive to prepayments because holders of these securities do not have the right to receive any principal payments on the underlying mortgages. Agency IOs currently comprise a large percentage of our interest earning assets. As a result, increased levels of prepayments on our Agency IOs will negatively impact our net interest income and may result in a loss. 

Certain actions by the U.S. Federal Reserve could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

On September 21, 2011, the U.S. Federal Reserve, or Federal Reserve, announced "Operation Twist," a program by which it purchased, by the end of December 2012, more than $650 billion of U.S. Treasury securities with remaining maturities between six and 30 years and sold an equal amount of U.S. Treasury securities with remaining maturities of three years or less. In addition, on September 13, 2012, the Federal Reserve announced a third round of quantitative easing, or "QE3," which is an open-ended program designed to expand the Federal Reserve's holdings of long-term securities by purchasing an additional $40 billion of Agency RMBS per month until key economic indicators show sufficient signs of improvement. In December 2012, in an effort to keep long-term interest rates at low levels, the Federal Reserve announced an expansion of its asset buying program starting in January 2013, at which time it would commence outright purchases of longer-term U.S. Treasury securities at a pace of $45 billion per month. This new U.S. Treasury securities purchase program replaced "Operation Twist," which expired in December 2012.

In December 2013, given indications that the U.S. economy had improved sufficiently, the Federal Reserve announced that it would reduce the pace of its purchases of longer-term U.S. Treasury securities to $40 billion per month and its purchases of Agency RMBs to $35 billion per month and that it will likely reduce the pace of asset purchases in further measured steps to be announced at future meetings. Interest rates increased during 2013 as a result of market anticipation that the asset purchase program would be reduced. Late in January 2014, the Federal Reserve announced an additional $10 billion reduction in its monthly asset purchases, beginning in February 2014, which consists of a monthly purchase reduction of $5 billion in Agency RMBS and $5 billion in U.S. Treasury securities. Although in the immediate aftermath of the purchase reduction announcements interest rates have generally traded within a range, it remains possible that the precipitous termination of (or even just a phasing out of) Federal Reserve asset purchase programs could cause interest rates to rise substantially. Should the U.S. economy begin to indicate signs of deterioration, the Federal Reserve could decide to increase its asset purchase program or institute other measures designed to reduce interest rates. These measures could lead to a flattening in the yield curve, and increased prepayment rates (resulting from lower long-term interest rates, including mortgage rates), and a narrowing of our net interest margin. The modification or termination by the Federal Reserve of any of its programs could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our investments include high yield or subordinated and lower rated securities that have greater risks of loss than other investments, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and cash available for dividends.

We own and seek to acquire higher yielding or subordinated or lower rated securities, including subordinated tranches of CMBS or non-Agency RMBS, which involve a higher degree of risk than other investments. Numerous factors may affect a company’s ability to repay its high yield or subordinated securities, including the failure to meet its business plan, a downturn in its industry or negative economic conditions. These securities may not be secured by mortgages or liens on assets. Our right to payment and security interest with respect to such securities may be subordinated to the payment rights and security interests of the senior lender. Therefore, we may be limited in our ability to enforce our rights to collect these loans and to recover any of the loan balance through a foreclosure of collateral.

Our efforts to manage credit risks may fail.

Despite our efforts to manage credit risk, there are many aspects of credit risk that we cannot control. Our credit policies and procedures may not be successful in limiting future delinquencies, defaults, and losses, or they may not be cost effective. Our underwriting reviews may not be effective. Loan servicing companies may not cooperate with our loss mitigation efforts or those efforts may be ineffective. Service providers to securitizations, such as trustees, loans servicers, bond insurance providers, and custodians, may not perform in a manner that promotes our interests. Delay of foreclosures could delay resolution and increase ultimate loss severities, as a result.

The value of the properties collateralizing or underlying the loans or securities we own may decline. The frequency of default and the loss severity on loans upon default may be greater than we anticipate. Interest-only loans, negative amortization loans, adjustable-rate loans, larger balance loans, reduced documentation loans, subprime loans, alt-a loans, second lien loans, loans in certain locations, and loans or investments that are partially collateralized by non-real estate assets may have increased risks and severity of loss. If property securing or underlying loans become real estate owned as a result of foreclosure, we bear the risk of not being able to sell the property and recovering our investment and of being exposed to the risks attendant to the ownership of real property.

If we underestimate the loss-adjusted yields of our investments in credit sensitive assets, we may experience losses.

 We and our managers expect to value our investments in many credit sensitive assets, including, but not limited to multi-family CMBS, based on loss-adjusted yields, taking into account estimated future losses on the mortgage loans that we are investing in or that are included in a particular securitization, and the estimated impact of these losses on expected future cash flows. Our loss estimates may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates. In the event that we underestimate the losses relative to the price we pay for a particular investment, we may experience losses with respect to such investment.

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

We currently own and intend to continue to purchase principal only multi-family CMBS 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 own and intend to continue to purchase interest only securities issued by multi-family mortgage loan securitizations. However, these interest only CMBS typically only receive payments of interest to the extent that there are funds available in the securitization to make the payments. CMBS generally entitle the holders thereof to receive payments that depend primarily on the cash flow from a specified pool of commercial or multi-family mortgage loans. Consequently, the CMBS, and in particular, first loss principal only CMBS, will be adversely affected by payment defaults, delinquencies and losses on the underlying mortgage loans, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows and results of operations.

Residential mortgage loans, including subprime residential mortgage loans and non-performing and sub-performing residential mortgage loans, are subject to increased risks.

We acquire and manage residential whole mortgage loans, including loans sourced from distressed markets. Residential mortgage loans, including non-performing and sub-performing mortgage loans as well as subprime mortgage loans, are subject to increased risks of loss. Unlike Agency RMBS, the residential mortgage loans we invest in generally are not guaranteed by the federal government or any GSE. Additionally, by directly acquiring residential mortgage loans, we do not receive the structural credit enhancements that benefit senior tranches of RMBS. A residential whole mortgage loan is directly exposed to losses resulting from default. Therefore, the value of the underlying property, the creditworthiness and financial position of the borrower and the priority and enforceability of the lien will significantly impact the value of such mortgage. In the event of a foreclosure, we may assume direct ownership of the underlying real estate. The liquidation proceeds upon sale of such real estate may not be sufficient to recover our cost basis in the loan, and any costs or delays involved in the foreclosure or liquidation process may increase losses.

Residential whole mortgage loans are also subject to "special hazard" risk (property damage caused by hazards, such as earthquakes or environmental hazards, not covered by standard property insurance policies), and to bankruptcy risk (reduction in a borrower's mortgage debt by a bankruptcy court). In addition, claims may be assessed against us on account of our position as a mortgage holder or property owner, including assignee liability, responsibility for tax payments, environmental hazards and other liabilities. In some cases, these liabilities may be "recourse liabilities" or may otherwise lead to losses in excess of the purchase price of the related mortgage or property.

Our targeted assets currently include distressed residential loans that we acquire from third parties, typically at a discount. Distressed residential loans sell at a discount because they may constitute riskier investments than those selling at or above par value. The distressed residential loans we invest in may be distressed because a borrower may have defaulted thereupon or because the loan may otherwise contain credit quality that is considered to be poor. The likelihood of full recovery of a distressed loan’s principal and contractual interest is less than that for loans trading at or above par value. Although we typically expect to receive less than the principal amount or face value of the distressed residential loans that we purchase, the return that we in fact receive thereupon may be less than our investment in such loans due to the failure of the loans to perform or reperform. An economic downturn would exacerbate the risks of the recovery of the full value of the loan or the cost of our investment therein.

If we sell or transfer any whole mortgage loans to a third party, including a securitization entity, we may be required to repurchase such loans or indemnify such third party if we breach representations and warranties.

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

The commercial mortgage loans we may originate or acquire and the mortgage loans underlying our CMBS investments are subject to the ability of the commercial property owner to generate net income from operating the property as well as the risks of delinquency and foreclosure.

Commercial mortgage loans are secured by multi-family or commercial property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risk of loss that may be greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential property. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of such property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower's ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Net operating income of an income-producing property can be adversely affected by, among other things,

In the event of any default under a mortgage loan held directly by us, we will bear a risk of loss to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the outstanding principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan, and any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

In the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process, which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan.

The preferred equity investments or mezzanine loan assets that we may acquire or originate will involve greater risks of loss than senior loans secured by income-producing properties.

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

We have acquired and may acquire in the future non-Agency RMBS collateralized by subprime and Alt A mortgage loans, which are not guaranteed by any government-sponsored entity or agency and are subject to increased risks.

We have acquired and may acquire in the future non-Agency RMBS, which are backed by residential real estate property but, in contrast to Agency RMBS, their principal and interest are not guaranteed by a GSE such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. We may acquire non-Agency RMBS backed by collateral pools of mortgage loans that have been originated using underwriting standards that are less restrictive than those used in underwriting “prime mortgage loans” and “Alt A mortgage loans.” These lower standards, which 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, subject us to increased risk of loss on our investment.

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 whole mortgage loans, CMBS or other mortgage-related or other fixed income assets, we or the external manager responsible for the acquisition and management of such asset may decide to conduct (either directly or using third parties) certain due diligence. Such due diligence may include (i) an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the asset’s credit profile, (ii) a review of all or merely a subset of the documentation related to the asset, or (iii) other reviews that we or the external manager may deem appropriate to conduct. There can be no assurance that we or the external manager will conduct any specific level of due diligence, or that, among other things, the due diligence process will uncover all relevant facts or that any purchase will be successful, which could result in losses on these assets, which, in turn, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our real estate assets are subject to risks particular to real property.

We own assets secured by real estate and may own real estate directly in the future, either through direct acquisitions or upon a default of mortgage loans. Real estate assets are subject to various risks, including:

The occurrence of any of the foregoing or similar events may reduce our return from an affected property or asset and, consequently, materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The lack of liquidity in certain of our assets may adversely affect our business.

A portion of the securities or loans we own or acquire may be subject to legal, contractual and other restrictions on resale or will otherwise be less liquid than publicly-traded securities. For example, a portion of our multi-family CMBS is held by a securitization trust and may not be sold or transferred until the note issued by the securitization trust matures or is repaid. The illiquidity of certain of our assets may make it difficult for us to sell such assets 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 assets. 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 results of operations and financial condition.

Our Level 2 portfolio investments are recorded at fair value based on market quotations from pricing services and broker/dealers. Our Level 3 investments are recorded at fair value utilizing internal valuation models. The value of our common stock could be adversely affected if our determinations regarding the fair value of these investments were materially higher than the values that we ultimately realize upon their disposal.

All of our current portfolio investments are, and some of our future portfolio investments will be, in the form of securities or other investments that are not publicly traded. The fair value of securities and other investments that are not publicly traded may not be readily determinable. We currently value and will continue to value these investments on a quarterly-basis at fair value as determined by our management based on market quotations from pricing services and brokers/dealers and/or internal valuation models. Because such quotations and valuations are inherently uncertain, they may fluctuate over short periods of time and are based on estimates, therefore our determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have been used if a public market for these securities existed. The value of our common stock could be adversely affected if our determinations regarding the fair value of these investments were materially higher than the values that we ultimately realize upon their disposal.

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 certain securitization trusts that issued certain of our multi-family CMBS or securitized debt were 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 those securitization trusts. As a result, we are required to consolidate the underlying multi-family loan or securities, as applicable, related debt, interest income and interest expense of those securitization trusts in our financial statements, although our actual investments in these securitization trusts generally represent a small percentage of the total assets of the trusts. Prior to the year ended December 31, 2012, we historically accounted for the multi-family CMBS in our investment portfolio through accumulated other comprehensive income, pursuant to which unrealized gains and losses on those multi-family CMBS were reflected as an adjustment to stockholders’ equity. However, the fair value option requires that changes in valuations in the assets and liabilities of those VIEs of which we are the primary beneficiary, such as the Consolidated K-Series, be reflected through our earnings. As we acquire additional multi-family CMBS assets in the future that are similar in structure and form to the Consolidated K-Series’ assets or securitize investment securities owned by us, we may be required to consolidate the assets and liabilities of the issuing or securitization trust 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.

Failure to procure adequate funding and capital would adversely affect our results and may, in turn, negatively affect the value of our common stock and our ability to distribute cash to our stockholders.

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

Competition may prevent us from acquiring assets on favorable terms or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We operate in a highly competitive market for investment opportunities. Our net income largely depends on our ability to acquire our targeted assets at favorable spreads over our borrowing costs. In acquiring our targeted assets, we compete with other REITs, investment banking firms, savings and loan associations, banks, insurance companies, mutual funds, other lenders and other entities that purchase mortgage-related assets, many of which have greater financial resources than us. Additionally, many of our potential competitors are not subject to REIT tax compliance or required to maintain an exemption from the Investment Company Act. As a result, we may not in the future be able to acquire sufficient quantities of our targeted assets at favorable spreads over our borrowing costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and 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.

We may change our investment strategy, hedging strategy and asset allocation and operational and management policies without stockholder consent, which may result in the purchase of riskier assets and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We may change our investment strategy, hedging strategy and asset allocation and operational and management policies at any time without the consent of our stockholders, which could result in our purchasing assets or entering into hedging transactions that are different from, and possibly riskier than, the assets and hedging transactions described in this report. A change in our investment strategy or hedging strategy may increase our exposure to real estate values, interest rates, prepayment rates, credit risk and other factors. A change in our asset allocation could result in us purchasing assets in classes different from those described in this report. Our Board of Directors determines our operational policies and may amend or revise our policies, including those with respect to our acquisitions, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization and distributions or approve transactions that deviate from these policies without a vote of, or notice to, our stockholders. In addition, certain of our external managers have great latitude in making investment and hedging decisions on our behalf. Changes in our investment strategy, hedging strategy and asset allocation and operational and management policies could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our senior management and our external managers will 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 Agency IOs and multi-family CMBS, our senior management team and our external managers must rely heavily on analytical models and information and data supplied by third parties. Models and data will be used to value potential target assets, potential credit risks and reserves and also in connection with hedging our acquisitions. In the event models and data prove to be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon expose us to potential risks.

In connection with our operating and investment activity, we rely on third parties, including our external managers, to perform certain services, comply with applicable laws and regulations, and carry out contractual covenants and terms, the failure of which by any of these third parties may adversely impact our business and financial results.

In connection with our business of acquiring and holding loans, engaging in securitization transactions, and investing in third-party issued securities, we rely on third party service providers, including our external managers, to perform certain services, comply with applicable laws and regulations, and carry out contractual covenants and terms. As a result, we are subject to the risks associated with a third party’s failure to perform, including failure to perform due to reasons such as fraud, negligence, errors, miscalculations, or insolvency.

We are highly dependent on information systems and system failures could significantly disrupt our business, which may, in turn, materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our business is highly dependent on communications and information systems. Any failure or interruption of our systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Actions of the U.S. Government to stabilize or reform the financial markets may not achieve the intended effect and may adversely affect our business.

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, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (or EESA), was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 2008. Although this action and others implemented in response to the financial crisis appear to have stabilized the banking system and financial markets, there can be no assurance that the EESA or any other U.S. Government actions will have a long-term beneficial impact on the financial markets. To the extent such actions do not function as intended over the longer term, our business may not ultimately receive the anticipated positive impact from the legislation and such result may have broad adverse market implications.

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. For instance, the Dodd-Frank Act seeks to reform the asset-backed securitization market (including the mortgage-backed securities market) by requiring the retention of a portion of the credit risk inherent in the pool of securitized assets and by imposing additional registration and disclosure requirements. Certain of the new requirements and restrictions exempt Agency RMBS, other government issued or guaranteed securities, or other securities. Nonetheless, the Dodd-Frank Act also imposes significant regulatory restrictions on the origination and securitization of residential mortgage loans. The Dodd-Frank Act also created a new regulator, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (or the CFPB), which oversees many of the core laws which regulate the mortgage industry, including among others the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act. While the full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act and the role of the CFPB cannot be assessed until all implementing regulations are released, the Dodd-Frank Act's extensive requirements may have a significant effect on the financial markets, and may affect the availability or terms of financing from our lender counterparties and the availability or terms of mortgage-backed securities, both of which may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, the U.S. Government, Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury, the SEC and other governmental and regulatory bodies have taken or are considering taking other actions that impact the mortgage industry and financial markets. We cannot predict whether or when such actions may occur or what effect, if any such actions could have on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The downgrade of the U.S.'s and certain European countries' or certain European financial institutions’ credit ratings, any future downgrades of the U.S.'s and certain European countries' or certain European financial institutions’ credit ratings and the failure to resolve issues related to U.S. fiscal and debt policies may materially adversely affect our business, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Recent U.S. debt ceiling and budget deficit concerns have increased the possibility of additional credit-rating downgrades or economic slowdowns in the U.S. Although U.S. lawmakers passed legislation to raise the federal debt ceiling in 2011, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. from “AAA” to “AA+” in August 2011. The impact of any further downgrades to the U.S. Government's sovereign credit rating or its perceived creditworthiness could adversely affect the U.S. and global financial markets and economic conditions. If the U.S.'s credit rating were downgraded it would likely impact the credit risk associated with Agency RMBS in our portfolio. A downgrade of the U.S. Government's credit rating or a default by the U.S. Government to satisfy its debt obligations likely would create broader financial turmoil and uncertainty, which would weigh heavily on the global banking system and these developments could cause interest rates and borrowing costs to rise and a reduction in the availability of credit, which may negatively impact the value of the assets in our portfolio, our net income, liquidity and our ability to finance our assets on favorable terms.

In addition, in recent years, several large European financial institutions have experienced financial difficulty resulting in downgrades to their credit ratings and, in some cases, these financial institutions have required assistance from European sovereign governments or other large European banks. As economic uncertainty in Europe continues, the financial condition and stability of many European financial institutions remains at risk. Some of these financial institutions have U.S. banking subsidiaries that serve as financing or hedging counterparties to us. Any future downgrade of the credit ratings of these European financial institutions would result in greater counterparty default risk and could materially adversely affect our business, liquidity, access to financing and results of operations

Failure to obtain and maintain an exemption from being regulated as a commodity pool operator could subject us to additional regulation and compliance requirements and may result in fines and other penalties which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Dodd-Frank Act established a comprehensive new regulatory framework for derivative contracts commonly referred to as “swaps.” As a result, any investment fund that trades in swaps may be considered a “commodity pool,” which would cause its operators (and in some cases the fund's directors) to be regulated as “commodity pool operators” ("CPOs"). Under new rules adopted by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) those funds that become commodity pools solely because of their use of swaps must register with the National Futures Association ("NFA"). Registration requires compliance with the CFTC's regulations and the NFA's rules with respect to capital raising, disclosure, reporting, recordkeeping and other business conduct. However, the CFTC's Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight issued a no-action letter in December 2012 saying, although it believes that mortgage REITs are properly considered commodity pools, it would not recommend that the CFTC take enforcement action against the operator of a mortgage REIT who does not register as a CPO if, among other things, the mortgage REIT limits the initial margin and premiums required to establish its swaps, futures and other commodity interest positions to not more than five percent of its total assets, the mortgage REIT limits the net income derived annually from those commodity interest positions that are not qualifying hedging transactions to less than five percent of its gross income and interests in the mortgage REIT are not marketed to the public as or in a commodity pool or otherwise as or in a vehicle for trading in the commodity futures, commodity options or swaps markets.

We use hedging instruments in conjunction with our investment portfolio and related borrowings to reduce or mitigate risks associated with changes in interest rates, mortgage spreads, yield curve shapes and market volatility. These hedging instruments include interest rate swaps, interest rate futures and options on interest rate futures. We do not currently engage in any speculative derivatives activities or other non-hedging transactions using swaps, futures or options on futures. We do not use these instruments for the purpose of trading in commodity interests, and we do not consider our company or our operations to be a commodity pool as to which CPO registration or compliance is required. We have submitted the required filing to claim the no-action relief afforded by the above-described no-action letter. Consequently, we will be restricted to operating within the parameters discussed in the no-action letter and will not enter into hedging transactions covered by the no-action letter if they would cause us to exceed the limits set forth in the no-action letter. In the event that we fail to comply with statutory requirements relating to derivatives or with the CFTC's rules thereunder, including the no-action letter described above, we may be subject to significant fines, penalties and other civil or governmental actions or proceedings, any of which could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risk Related to Our Debt Financing and Hedging

Our access to financing sources, which may not be available on favorable terms, or at all, may be limited, and this may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We depend upon the availability of adequate capital and financing sources on acceptable terms to fund our operations. However, as previously discussed, the capital and credit markets have experienced unprecedented levels of volatility and disruption in recent years that has generally caused a reduction of availability credit. Continued volatility or disruption in the credit markets or a downturn in the global economy could materially adversely affect one or more of our lenders and could cause one or more of our lenders to be unwilling or unable to provide us with financing, or to increase the costs of that financing, or to become insolvent. Although we finance some of our assets with longer-term structured financing having terms of three years or more, we rely heavily on access to short-terms borrowings, primarily in the form of repurchase agreements, to finance our investments. We are currently party to repurchase agreements of a short duration and there can be no assurance that we will be able to roll over or re-set these borrowings on favorable terms, if at all. In the event we are unable to roll over or re-set our repurchase agreement borrowings, it may be more difficult for us to obtain debt financing on favorable terms or at all. In addition, if regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders change, they may be required to limit, or increase the cost of, financing they provide to us. In general, this could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity or require us to sell assets at an inopportune time or price. Under current market conditions, securitizations are generally unavailable or limited, which has also limited borrowings under warehouse facilities and other credit facilities that are intended to be refinanced by such securitizations. Consequently, depending on market conditions at the relevant time, we may have to rely on additional equity issuances to meet our capital and financing needs, which may be dilutive to our stockholders, or we may have to rely on less efficient forms of debt financing that consume a larger portion of our cash flow from operations, thereby reducing funds available for our operations, future business opportunities, cash distributions to our stockholders and other purposes. We cannot assure you that we will have access to such equity or debt capital on favorable terms (including, without limitation, cost and term) at the desired times, or at all, which may cause us to curtail our investment activities and/or dispose of assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.  

We may incur increased borrowing costs related to repurchase agreements and that would adversely affect our profitability.

Currently, a significant portion of our borrowings are collateralized borrowings in the form of repurchase agreements.  If the interest rates on these agreements increase at a rate higher than the increase in rates payable on our investments, our profitability would be adversely affected.

Our borrowing costs under repurchase agreements generally correspond to short-term interest rates such as LIBOR or a short-term Treasury index, plus or minus a margin.  The margins on these borrowings over or under short-term interest rates may vary depending upon a number of factors, including, without limitation:

During 2008 and 2009, many repurchase agreement lenders required higher levels of collateral than they had required in the past to support repurchase agreements collateralized by RMBS. Although these collateral requirements have been reduced to more appropriate levels, we cannot assure you that they will not again experience a dramatic increase. If the interest rates, lending margins or collateral requirements under our short-term borrowings, including repurchase agreements, increase, or if lenders impose other onerous terms to obtain this type of financing, our results of operations will be adversely affected.

The repurchase agreements that we use to finance our investments may require us to provide additional collateral, which could reduce our liquidity and harm our financial condition.

We intend to use repurchase agreements to finance certain of our investments, primarily RMBS. If the market value of the loans or securities pledged or sold by us to a funding source decline in value, we may be required by the lending institution to provide additional collateral or pay down a portion of the funds advanced, but we may not have the funds available to do so. Posting additional collateral to support our repurchase agreements will reduce our liquidity and limit our ability to leverage our assets. In the event we do not have sufficient liquidity to meet such requirements, lending institutions can accelerate our indebtedness, increase our borrowing rates, liquidate our collateral at inopportune times and terminate our ability to borrow. This could result in a rapid deterioration of our financial condition and possibly require us to file for protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

We intend to leverage our equity, which will exacerbate any losses we incur on our current and future investments and may reduce cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We intend to leverage our equity through borrowings, generally through the use of repurchase agreements and other short-term borrowings or through longer-term structured debt, such as CDOs and other forms of securitized debt. We may, in the future, utilize other forms of borrowing.  The amount of leverage we incur varies depending on the asset type, our ability to obtain borrowings, the cost of the debt and our lenders’ estimates of the value of our portfolio’s cash flow. The return on our investments and cash available for distribution to our stockholders may be reduced to the extent that changes in market conditions cause the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income that can be derived from the assets we hold in our investment portfolio. Further, the leverage on our equity may exacerbate any losses we incur.

Our debt service payments will reduce the net income available for distribution to our stockholders. We may not be able to meet our debt service obligations and, to the extent that we cannot, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to sale to satisfy our debt obligations. A decrease in the value of the assets may lead to margin calls under our repurchase agreements which we will have to satisfy. Significant decreases in asset valuation, could lead to increased margin calls, and we may not have the funds available to satisfy any such margin calls. Although we have established target leverage amounts for many of our assets, there is no established limitation, other than may be required by our financing arrangements, on our leverage ratio or on the aggregate amount of our borrowings.  

If we are unable to leverage our equity to the extent we currently anticipate, the returns on certain of our assets could be diminished, which may limit or eliminate our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

If we are limited in our ability to leverage our assets to the extent we currently anticipate, the returns on these assets may be harmed. A key element of our strategy is our use of leverage to increase the size of our portfolio in an attempt to enhance our returns. Our repurchase agreements are not currently committed facilities, meaning that the counterparties to these agreements may at any time choose to restrict or eliminate our future access to the facilities and we have no other committed credit facilities through which we may leverage our equity. If we are unable to leverage our equity to the extent we currently anticipate, the returns on our portfolio could be diminished, which may limit or eliminate our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

  We directly or indirectly utilize non-recourse securitizations and recourse structured financings and such structures expose us to risks that could result in losses to us.

We sometimes utilize non-recourse securitizations of our investments in mortgage loans or CMBS to the extent consistent with the maintenance of our REIT qualification and exemption from the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, in order to generate cash for funding new investments and/or to leverage existing assets.  In most instances, this involves us transferring loans or CMBS owned by us to a SPE in exchange for cash and typically the ownership certificate or residual interest in the entity.  In some sale transactions, we also retain a subordinated interest in the loans or CMBS sold, such as a B-note.  The securitization or other structured financing of our portfolio investments might magnify our exposure to losses on those portfolio investments because the subordinated interest we retain in the loans or CMBS sold would be subordinate to the senior interest in the loans or CMBS sold, and we would, therefore, absorb all of the losses sustained with respect to a loan sold before the owners of the senior interest experience any losses.  Under the terms of these financings, which generally have terms of three to ten years, we may agree to receive no cash flows from the assets transferred to the SPE until the debt issued by the special purpose entity has matured or been repaid. We cannot be assured that we will be able to access the securitization markets in the future, or be able to do so at favorable rates. The inability to consummate longer term financing for the credit sensitive assets in our portfolio could require us to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at an inopportune time or price, which could adversely affect our performance and our ability to grow our business.

In addition, under the terms of the securitization or structured financing, we may have limited or no ability to sell, transfer or replace the assets transferred to the SPE, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to sell the assets opportunistically or during periods when our liquidity is constrained or to refinance the assets. Finally, we have in the past and may in the future guarantee certain terms or conditions of these financings, including the payment of principal and interest on the debt issued by the SPE, the cash flows for which are typically derived from the assets transferred to the entity. If a SPE defaults on its obligations and we have guaranteed the satisfaction of that obligation, we may be materially adversely affected.

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 we default on our obligations under the repurchase agreement, we may incur losses.

When we engage in repurchase transactions, we generally sell RMBS or CMBS to lenders (i.e., repurchase agreement counterparties) and receive cash from the lenders. The lenders are obligated to resell the same security 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 security to the lender is less than the value of those security (this difference is referred to as the “haircut”), if the lender defaults on its obligation to resell the same security back to us we would incur a loss on the transaction equal to the amount of the haircut (assuming there was no change in the value of the security). Certain of the assets that we pledge as collateral, including Agency IOs and CLOs, are currently subject to significant haircuts. Further, if we default on one of our obligations under a repurchase transaction, the lender can terminate the transaction and cease entering into any other repurchase transactions with us. 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 repurchase agreements to borrow funds may give our lenders greater rights in the event that either we or a lender files for bankruptcy.

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

Our liquidity may be adversely affected by margin calls under our repurchase agreements because we are dependent in part on the lenders' valuation of the collateral securing the financing.

Each of these repurchase agreements allows the lender, to varying degrees, to revalue the collateral to values that the lender considers to reflect market value. If a lender determines that the value of the collateral has decreased, it may initiate a margin call requiring us to post additional collateral to cover the decrease. When we are subject to such a margin call, we must provide the lender with additional collateral or repay a portion of the outstanding borrowings with minimal notice. Any such margin call could harm our liquidity, results of operation and financial condition.  Additionally, in order to obtain cash to satisfy a margin call, we may be required to liquidate assets at a disadvantageous time, which could cause it to incur further losses and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Adoption of the Basel III standards and other proposed supplementary regulatory standards may negatively impact our access to financing or affect the terms of our future financing arrangements.

In response to various financial crises and the volatility of financial markets, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision adopted the Basel III standards several years ago. The final package of Basel III reforms was approved by the G20 leaders in November 2010. In January 2013, the Basel Committee agreed to delay implementation of the Basel III standards and expanded the scope of assets permitted to be included in a bank’s liquidity measurement. U.S. regulators have elected to implement substantially all of the Basel III standards. Financial institutions will have until 2019 to fully comply with the Basel III standards, which could cause an increase in capital requirements for, and could place constraints on, the financial institutions from which we borrow.

Shortly after approving the Basel III standards, U.S. regulators also issued a notice of proposed rule-making calling for enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards, which would impose capital requirements more stringent than those of the Basel III standards for the most systematically significant banking organizations in the U.S. The enhanced standards are currently subject to public comment, and there can be no assurance that they will be adopted or, if adopted, that they will resemble the current proposal. Adoption and implementation of the Basel III standards and the supplemental regulatory standards proposed by U.S. regulators may negatively impact our access to financing or affect the terms of our future financing arrangements.

Hedging against credit events and interest rate changes and other risks may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Subject to compliance with the requirements to qualify as a REIT, we engage in certain hedging transactions to limit our exposure to changes in interest rates and therefore may expose ourselves to risks associated with such transactions. We may utilize instruments such as interest rate swaps, caps, collars and floors and Eurodollar and U.S. Treasury futures to seek to hedge the interest rate risk associated with our portfolio. Hedging against a decline in the values of our portfolio positions does not eliminate the possibility of fluctuations in the values of such positions or prevent losses if the values of such positions decline. However, we may establish other hedging positions designed to gain from those same developments, thereby offsetting the decline in the value of such portfolio positions. Such hedging transactions may also limit the opportunity for gain if the values of the portfolio positions should increase. Moreover, at any point in time we may choose not to hedge all or a portion of these risks, and we generally will not hedge those risks that we believe are appropriate for us to take at such time, or that we believe would be impractical or prohibitively expensive to hedge.

Even if we do choose to hedge certain risks, for a variety of reasons we generally will not seek to establish a perfect correlation between our hedging instruments and the risks being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the composition of our portfolio, our market views, and changing market conditions, including the level and volatility of interest rates. When we do choose to hedge, hedging may fail to protect or could materially adversely affect us because, among other things:

For these and other reasons, our hedging activity may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Hedging instruments and other derivatives may not, in many cases, be traded on regulated exchanges, or guaranteed or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities and involve risks and costs that could result in material losses.

Hedging instruments and other derivatives involve risk because they may not, in many cases, be traded on regulated exchanges and may not be guaranteed or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, for these instruments, there are no requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. We are restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of our transactions with one counterparty. The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in a default under the hedging agreement. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in losses and may force us to re-initiate similar hedges with other counterparties at the then-prevailing market levels. Generally we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging transactions upon a counterparty’s insolvency, but absent an actual insolvency, we may not be able to terminate a hedging transaction without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to assign or otherwise dispose of a hedging transaction to another counterparty without the consent of both the original hedging counterparty and the potential assignee. If we terminate a hedging transaction, we may not be able to enter into a replacement contract in order to cover our risk. There can be no assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and therefore we may be required to maintain any hedging position until exercise or expiration, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, and certain commodity exchanges have established limits referred to as speculative position limits or position limits on the maximum net long or net short position which any person or group of persons may hold or control in particular futures and options. Limits on trading in options contracts also have been established by the various options exchanges. It is possible that trading decisions may have to be modified and that positions held may have to be liquidated in order to avoid exceeding such limits. Such modification or liquidation, if required, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operation and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Certain of our hedging instruments are regulated by the CFTC and such regulations may cause us to incur increased compliance costs.

From time to time, we enter into interest rate swaps and other derivative instruments on corporate indices to hedge risks associated with our portfolio. Entities entering into such swaps are exposed to credit losses in the event of non-performance by counterparties to these transactions. Effective October 12, 2012, the CFTC issued new rules regarding such swaps under the authority granted to it pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. Although the new rules do not directly affect the negotiations and terms of individual hedging transactions between counterparties, they do require that since September 9, 2013, these swap transactions be cleared through registered derivatives clearing organizations, or swap execution facilities, through standardized documents under which each swap counterparty transfers its position to another entity, In this arrangement, the centralized clearinghouse effectively becomes the counterparty to each side of the swap. It is the intent of the Dodd-Frank Act that the clearing of swaps in this manner is designed to avoid concentration of swap risk in any single entity by spreading and centralizing the risk in the clearinghouse and its members. In addition to greater initial and periodic margin (collateral) requirements and additional transaction fees both by the swap execution facility and the clearinghouse, the swap transactions are now subjected to greater regulation by both the CFTC and the SEC. These additional fees, costs, margin requirements, documentation, and regulation could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Additionally, for all swaps we entered into prior to September 9, 2013, we are not required to clear them through the central clearinghouse and these swaps are still subject to the risks of nonperformance by any of the individual counterparties with whom we entered into these transactions.

Our delayed delivery transactions, including TBAs, subject us to certain risks, including price risks and counterparty risks.

We purchase a significant portion of our Agency RMBS through delayed delivery transactions, including TBAs. In a delayed delivery transaction, we enter into a forward purchase agreement with a counterparty to purchase either (i) an identified Agency RMBS, or (ii) a to-be-issued (or “to-be-announced”) Agency RMBS with certain terms. As with any forward purchase contract, the value of the underlying Agency RMBS may decrease between the contract date and the settlement date. Furthermore, a transaction counterparty may fail to deliver the underlying Agency RMBS at the settlement date. If any of the above risks were to occur, our financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Agreements with Our External Managers

We are dependent on certain of our external managers and certain of their key personnel and may not find a suitable replacement if they terminate their respective management agreements with us or such key personnel are no longer available to us.

We historically were organized as a self-advised company that acquired, originated, sold and managed its assets; however, as we modified our business strategy and the targeted assets we seek to acquire in response to changing market conditions, we began to outsource the management of certain targeted asset classes for which we had limited internal resources or experience. We presently utilize three external managers to manage certain of our assets and investment strategies. Each of our external managers, in some manner, identifies, evaluates, negotiates, structures, closes and monitors certain investments on our behalf. In each case, we have engaged these third parties because of the expertise of certain key personnel of our external managers. The departure of any of the senior officers of our external managers, or of a significant number of investment professionals or principals of our external managers, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to achieve our investment objectives.  We are subject to the risk that our external managers will terminate their respective management agreement with us or that we may deem it necessary to terminate such agreement or prevent certain individuals from performing services for us, and that no suitable replacement will be found to manage certain of our assets and investment strategies.

Pursuant to our management agreements, our external managers are entitled to receive a management fee that is payable regardless of the performance of the assets under their management.

We will pay each of our external managers substantial base management fees, based on our invested capital (as such term is defined in the respective management agreements), regardless of the performance of the assets under their management. The external managers’ entitlement in many cases to non-performance based compensation may reduce its incentive to devote the time and effort of its professionals to seeking profitable investment opportunities for our company, which could result in the under-performance of assets under their management and negatively affect our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders or to achieve capital appreciation.

Pursuant to the terms of our management agreements, our external managers are generally entitled to receive an incentive fee, which may induce them to make certain investments, including speculative or high risk investments.

In addition to the base management fees payable to our external managers, our external managers are generally entitled to receive incentive compensation based, in part, upon the achievement of targeted levels of net income. In evaluating investments and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn incentive compensation based on net income may lead our external managers to place undue emphasis on the maximization of net income at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, maintaining liquidity and/or management of interest rate, credit or market risks, in order to achieve higher incentive compensation. Investments with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative. In addition, Midway has broad discretion regarding the types of investments it will make pursuant to its management agreement with us. This could result in increased risk to the value of our assets under the management of our external managers.

We compete with our external managers’ other clients for access to them.

Each of our external managers manages, and is expected to continue to manage, other client accounts with similar or overlapping investment strategies. In connection with the services provided to those accounts, these managers may be compensated more favorably than for the services provided under our external management agreements, and such discrepancies in compensation may affect the level of service provided to us by our external managers. Moreover, each of our external managers may have an economic interest in the accounts they manage or the investments they propose.  As a result, we will compete with these other accounts and interests for access to our external managers and the benefits derived from those relationships. For the same reasons, the personnel of our external managers may be unable to dedicate a substantial portion of their time managing our investments to the extent they manage or are associated with any future investment vehicles not related to us.

There are conflicts of interest in our relationships with our external managers, which could result in decisions that are not in the best interests of our stockholders.

We may acquire or sell assets in which an external manager or its affiliates have or may have an interest, or we may participate in co-investment opportunities with our external managers or their affiliates. In these cases, it is possible that our interests and the interests of our external managers will not always be aligned and this could result in decisions that are not in the best interests of our company. Similarly, our external managers or its affiliates may acquire or sell assets in which we have or may have an interest. Although such acquisitions or dispositions may present conflicts of interest, we nonetheless may pursue and consummate such transactions. Additionally, we may engage in transactions directly with our external managers or their affiliates, including the purchase and sale of all or a portion of a targeted asset.

Acquisitions made for entities with similar objectives may be different from those made on our behalf. Our external managers may have economic interests in or other relationships with others in whose obligations or securities we may acquire. In particular, such persons may make and/or hold an investment in securities that we acquire that may be pari passu, senior or junior in ranking to our interest in the securities or in which partners, security holders, officers, directors, agents or employees of such persons serve on boards of directors or otherwise have ongoing relationships. Each of such ownership and other relationships may result in securities laws restrictions on transactions in such securities and otherwise create conflicts of interest. In such instances, the external managers may, in their sole discretion, make recommendations and decisions regarding such securities for other entities that may be the same as or different from those made with respect to securities acquired by us and may take actions (or omit to take actions) in the context of these other economic interests or relationships, the consequences of which may be adverse to our interests.

The key personnel of our external managers and its affiliates devote as much time to us as our external managers deem appropriate, however, these individuals may have conflicts in allocating their time and services among us and their other accounts and investment vehicles. During turbulent conditions in the mortgage industry, distress in the credit markets or other times when we will need focused support and assistance from our external managers, other entities for which our external managers serve as manager, or their accounts, will likewise require greater focus and attention, placing the resources of our external managers in high demand. In such situations, we may not receive the necessary support and assistance we require or would otherwise receive if we were internally managed.

We, directly or through our external managers, may obtain confidential information about the companies or securities in which we have invested or may invest. If we do possess confidential information about such companies or securities, there may be restrictions on our ability to dispose of, increase the amount of, or otherwise take action with respect to the securities of such companies. Our external managers’ management of other accounts could create a conflict of interest to the extent such external manager is aware of material non-public information concerning potential investment decisions and this in turn could impact our ability to make necessary investment decisions. Any limitations that develop as a result of our access to confidential information could therefore materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

There are limitations on our ability to withdraw invested capital from the account managed by Midway and our inability to withdraw our invested capital when necessary may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Pursuant to the terms of the Midway Management Agreement, we may only redeem invested capital in an amount equal to the lesser of 10% of the invested capital in the account managed by Midway or $10 million as of the last calendar day of the month upon not less than 75 days written notice, subject to our authority to direct Midway to modify its investment strategy for purposes of maintaining our qualification as a REIT and exemption from the Investment Company Act. In addition, we are only permitted to make one such redemption request in any 75-day period. In the event of a significant market event or shock, we may be unable to effect a redemption of invested capital in greater amounts or at a greater rate unless we obtain the consent of Midway. Moreover, because a reduction of invested capital would reduce the base management fee under the Midway Management Agreement, Midway may be less inclined to consent to such redemptions. If we are unable to withdraw invested capital as needed to meet our obligations in the future, our business and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Termination of our external management agreements may be difficult and costly.

Termination of the RiverBanc Management Agreement without cause is subject to several conditions which may make such a termination difficult and costly. The RiverBanc Management Agreement provides that we may only terminate RiverBanc without cause and not be obligated to pay a termination fee unless we realize a negative 15% return on the assets managed for us by RiverBanc. Moreover, except as described in the preceding sentence, we cannot terminate RiverBanc without cause until expiration of the initial term and then only upon providing 180 days advance notice and subject to the payment of a termination fee equal to the product of (A) 24 and (B) the base management fee earned by RiverBanc during the one month period immediately preceding the termination date. Thus, in the event we elect not to renew the RiverBanc Management Agreement for any reason other than cause or as otherwise described in this paragraph, we will be required to pay this termination fee. In addition, the RiverBanc Management Agreement provides RiverBanc with an exclusive right of first refusal to purchase any of our assets managed by it subject to certain exceptions, in the event we terminate them for any reason. This provision could result in our loss of assets that our earnings are dependent upon or may cause us to sell assets prior to our recovery of lost value. These provisions may increase the effective cost to us of terminating the RiverBanc Management Agreement, thereby adversely affecting our ability to terminate RiverBanc without cause.

Pursuant to the Midway Management Agreement, we are not permitted to terminate our agreement with Midway prior to the end of the initial term, and while we have agreed with Midway that we could suspend additional capital contributions to Midway in the event we experience a 20% decline in cumulative return on our invested capital in assets managed by Midway during any calendar year in the initial term, we do not have the right to cause Midway to liquidate the assets in that account. In the event we determine to terminate the Midway Management Agreement at any time in the future following expiration of the initial term, Midway has the right to liquidate the assets it manages on our behalf in its sole discretion. Moreover, as discussed above, there are certain restrictions on our ability to redeem invested capital under the Midway Management Agreement. As a result, we may have little control over the liquidation of any of our assets that are managed by Midway or the timing of the full redemption of our invested capital, which may make it more difficult to terminate our agreement with Midway and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to an Investment in Our Capital Stock

The market price and trading volume of our stock may be volatile.

The market price of our stock is highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations.  In addition, the trading volume in our stock may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur.  Some of the factors that could result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our stock include, among other things:  actual or anticipated changes in our current or future financial performance; changes in market interest rates and general market and economic conditions.  We cannot assure you that the market price of our stock will not fluctuate or decline significantly.

We have not established a minimum dividend payment level for our common stockholders and there are no assurances of our ability to pay dividends to common or preferred stockholders in the future.

We intend to pay quarterly dividends and to make distributions to our common stockholders in amounts such that all or substantially all of our taxable income in each year, subject to certain adjustments, is distributed. This, along with other factors, should enable us to qualify for the tax benefits accorded to a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code. We have not established a minimum dividend payment level for our common stockholders and our ability to pay dividends may be harmed by the risk factors described herein. From July 2007 until April 2008, our Board of Directors elected to suspend the payment of quarterly dividends on our common stock. Our Board’s decision reflected our focus on the elimination of operating losses through the sale of our mortgage lending business and the conservation of capital to build future earnings from our portfolio management operations. 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 are no assurances of our ability to pay dividends to our common or preferred stockholders in the future at the current rate or at all.

Future offerings of debt securities, which would rank senior to our common stock and preferred stock upon our liquidation, and future offerings of equity securities, which would dilute our existing stockholders and may be senior to our common stock for the purposes of dividend and liquidating distributions, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making offerings of debt or additional offerings of equity securities, including commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes and classes of preferred stock or common stock.  Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our preferred stock and common stock, with holders of our preferred stock having priority over holders of our common stock.  Additional equity offerings may dilute the holdings of our existing stockholders or reduce the market price of our common stock, or both.  Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings.  Thus, holders of our common stock bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting their stock holdings in us.

Future sales of our stock could have an adverse effect on the price of our stock.

We cannot predict the effect, if any, of future sales of our stock, or the availability of shares for future sales, on the market price of our common or preferred stock.  Sales of substantial amounts of stock, or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market prices for our common or preferred stock.

Your interest in us may be diluted if we issue additional shares.

Current stockholders of our company do not have preemptive rights to any common stock issued by us in the future. Therefore, our stockholders may experience dilution of their equity investment if we sell additional common stock in the future, sell securities that are convertible into common stock or issue shares of common stock or options exercisable for shares of common stock. In addition, we could sell securities at a price less than our then-current book value per share.

Investing in our securities may involve a high degree of risk.

The investments we make in accordance with our investment strategy may result in a high degree of risk, volatility or loss of principal than alternative investment options. Our investments may be highly speculative and aggressive, and therefore, an investment in our securities may not be suitable for someone with lower risk tolerance.

Risks Related to Our Company, Structure and Change in Control Provisions       

Our directors have approved broad investment guidelines for us and do not approve each investment we make.  

Our external managers are generally authorized to follow broad investment guidelines in determining which assets we will invest in. Although our Board of Directors will ultimately determine when and how much capital to allocate to our investment strategies, we generally will not, with certain exceptions, approve transactions in advance of their execution by these managers. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, we will rely primarily on information provided to us by our external managers. Complicating matters further, our external managers may use complex investment strategies and transactions, which may be difficult or impossible to unwind. As a result, because our external managers have great latitude to determine the types of assets it may decide are proper investments for us, there can be no assurance that we would otherwise approve of these investments individually or that they will be successful.

We are dependent on certain key personnel.

We are a small company and are substantially dependent upon the efforts of our Chief Executive Officer and President, Steven R. Mumma, and certain key individuals employed by our external managers. The loss of Mr. Mumma or any key personnel or their services could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Certain provisions of Maryland law and our charter and bylaws could hinder, delay or prevent a change in control which could have an adverse effect on the value of our securities.

Certain provisions of Maryland law, our charter and our bylaws may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing transactions that involve an actual or threatened change in control.  These provisions include the following, among others:

Although our Board of Directors has adopted a resolution exempting us from application of the Maryland Business Combination Act and our bylaws provide that we are not subject to the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act, our Board of Directors may elect to make the “business combination” statute and “control share” statute applicable to us at any time and may do so without stockholder approval.

Maintenance of our Investment Company Act exemption imposes limits on our operations.

  We have conducted and intend to continue to conduct our operations so as not to become regulated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. We believe that there are a number of exclusions under the Investment Company Act that are applicable to us. To maintain the exclusion, the assets that we acquire are limited by the provisions of the Investment Company Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Investment Company Act. On August 31, 2011, the SEC published a concept release entitled “Companies Engaged in the Business of Acquiring Mortgages and Mortgage Related Instruments” (Investment Company Act Rel. No. 29778). This release suggests that the SEC may modify the exemption relied upon by companies similar to us that invest in mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities. If the SEC acts to narrow the availability of, or if we otherwise fail to qualify for, our exclusion, we could, among other things, be required either (a) to change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company or (b) to register as an investment company, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our operations and the market price of our common stock.

The stock ownership limit imposed by our charter may inhibit market activity in our common stock and may restrict our business combination opportunities.

In order for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT under the Code, not more than 50% in value of the issued and outstanding shares of our capital stock may be owned, actually or constructively, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities) at any time during the last half of each taxable year (other than our first year as a REIT).  This test is known as the “5/50 test.”  Attribution rules in the Code apply to determine if any individual or entity actually or constructively owns our capital stock for purposes of this requirement.  Additionally, at least 100 persons must beneficially own our capital stock during at least 335 days of each taxable year (other than our first year as a REIT).  To help ensure that we meet these tests, our charter restricts the acquisition and ownership of shares of our capital stock.  Our charter, with certain exceptions, authorizes our directors to take such actions as are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT and provides that, unless exempted by our Board of Directors, no person may own more than 9.9% in value of the aggregate of the outstanding shares of our capital stock or more than 9.9% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the aggregate of our outstanding shares of common stock.  The ownership limits contained in our charter could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control of our company under circumstances that otherwise could provide our stockholders with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then current market price for our common stock or would otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.

Tax Risks Related to Our Structure

Failure to qualify as a REIT would adversely affect our operations and ability to make distributions.

We have operated and intend to continue to operate so to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.  Our continued qualification as a REIT will depend on our ability to meet various requirements concerning, among other things, the ownership of our outstanding stock, the nature of our assets, the sources of our income, and the amount of our distributions to our stockholders.  In order to satisfy these requirements, we might have to forego investments we might otherwise make.  Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our investment performance.  Moreover, while we intend to continue to operate so to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, given the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, there can be no assurance that we will so qualify in any taxable year.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be subject to federal income tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax) on our taxable income at regular corporate rates.  We might be required to borrow funds or liquidate some investments in order to pay the applicable tax.  Our payment of income tax would reduce our net earnings available for investment or distribution to stockholders.  Furthermore, if we fail to qualify as a REIT and do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would no longer be required to make distributions to stockholders.  Unless our failure to qualify as a REIT were excused under the federal income tax laws, we generally would be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year in which we lost our REIT status.

REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our liquidity.

In order to qualify as a REIT, we generally are required each year to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding any net capital gain.  To the extent that we distribute at least 90%, but less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, we will be subject to corporate income tax on our undistributed REIT taxable income.  In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which certain distributions paid by us with respect to any calendar year are less than the sum of (i) 85% of our ordinary REIT income for that year, (ii) 95% of our REIT capital gain net income for that year, and (iii) 100% of our undistributed REIT taxable income from prior years.

We have made and intend to continue to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the 90% distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the nondeductible excise tax.  However, differences in timing between the recognition of REIT taxable income and the actual receipt of cash could require us to sell assets or to borrow funds on a short-term basis to meet the 90% distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the nondeductible excise tax.

Certain of our assets may generate substantial mismatches between REIT taxable income and available cash.  Such assets could include mortgage-backed securities we hold that have been issued at a discount and require the accrual of taxable income in advance of the receipt of cash.  As a result, our taxable income may exceed our cash available for distribution and the requirement to distribute a substantial portion of our net taxable income could cause us to:

Further, our lenders could require us to enter into negative covenants, including restrictions on our ability to distribute funds or to employ leverage, which could inhibit our ability to satisfy the 90% distribution requirement.

Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates on dividend income from regular corporations.

The maximum U.S. federal income tax rate for dividends payable to domestic stockholders that are individuals, trust and estates is 20%.  Dividends payable by REITs, however, are generally not eligible for the reduced rates.  Although the reduced U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to dividend income from regular corporate dividends does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, the more favorable rate applicable to regular corporate 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 shares of REITs, including our common shares.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively.

The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code substantially limit our ability to hedge the RMBS in our investment portfolio.  Our aggregate gross income from non-qualifying hedges, fees, and certain other non-qualifying sources cannot exceed 5% of our annual gross income.  As a result, we might have to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a TRS.  Any hedging income earned by a TRS would be subject to federal, state and local income tax at regular corporate rates.  This could increase the cost of our hedging activities or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear.

A decline in the value of the real estate securing the mortgage loans that back RMBS could cause a portion of our income from such securities to be nonqualifying income for purposes of the REIT 75% gross income test, which could cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT.

Pools of mortgage loans back the RMBS that we hold in our investment portfolio and in which we invest.  In general, the interest income from a mortgage loan is qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test applicable to REITs to the extent that the mortgage loan is secured by real property.  If a mortgage loan has a loan-to-value ratio greater than 100%, however, then only a proportionate part of the interest income is qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test and only a proportionate part of the value of the loan is treated as a “real estate asset” for purposes of the 75% asset test applicable to REITs.  This loan-to-value ratio is generally measured at the time that the REIT commits to acquire the loan.  Although the IRS has ruled generally that the interest income from non-CMO RMBS is qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, it is not entirely clear how this guidance would apply if we purchase non-CMO RMBS in the secondary market at a time when the loan-to-value ratio of one or more of the mortgage loans backing the non-CMO RMBS is greater than 100%, and, accordingly, a portion of any income from such non-CMO RMBS may be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test.  In addition, that guidance does not apply to CMO RMBS.  In the case of CMO RMBS, if less than 95% of the assets of the issuer of the CMO RMBS constitute “real estate assets,” then only a proportionate part of our income derived from the CMO RMBS will qualify for purposes of the 75% gross income test.  Although the law is not clear, the IRS may take the position that the determination of the loan-to-value ratio for mortgage loans that back CMO RMBS is to be made on a quarterly basis.  A decline in the value of the real estate securing the mortgage loans that back our CMO RMBS could cause a portion of the interest income from those RMBS to be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test.  If such non-qualifying income caused us to fail the 75% gross income test and we did not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would fail to qualify as a REIT.

Our ability to invest in distressed mortgage loans may be limited by our intention to maintain our qualification as a REIT, and our investments in distressed residential mortgage loans may affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

We have acquired distressed mortgage loans and may acquire distressed mortgage loans in the future. In general, under the applicable Treasury Regulations, if a loan is secured by real property and other property and the highest principal amount of the loan outstanding during a taxable year exceeds the fair market value of the real property securing the loan as of (i) the date we agreed to acquire the loan or (ii) in the event of a significant modification, the date we modified the loan, then a portion of the interest income from such a loan will not be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, but will be qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test.

Although the law is not entirely clear, a portion of the loan will also likely be a non-qualifying asset for purposes of the 75% asset test. The non-qualifying portion of such a loan would be subject to, among other requirements, the 10% value test. Revenue Procedure 2011-16 provides a safe harbor under which the IRS has stated that it will not challenge a REIT’s treatment of a loan as being, in part, a qualifying real estate asset in an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the fair market value of the real property securing the loan determined as of the date the REIT committed to acquire the loan or (ii) the fair market value of the loan on the date of the relevant quarterly REIT asset testing date. This safe harbor will help us comply with the REIT asset tests immediately following the acquisition of a distressed mortgage loan. It will be less helpful if the value of the distressed mortgage loan increases over time. Under the safe harbor, when the current value of a distressed mortgage loan exceeds the fair market value of the real property that secures the loan, determined as of the date we committed to acquire the loan, the excess will be treated as a non-qualifying asset. Accordingly, an increasing portion of a distressed mortgage loan will be treated as a non-qualifying asset as the value of the distressed mortgage loan increases.

Additionally, Revenue Procedure 2011-16 states that the IRS will treat distressed mortgage loans secured by real property and other property as producing in part non-qualifying income for the 75% gross income test. Specifically, Revenue Procedure 2011-16 indicates that interest income on a distressed mortgage loan will be treated as qualifying income based on the ratio of (i) the fair market value of the real property securing the loan determined as of the date we committed to acquire the loan and (ii) the face amount of the loan (and not the purchase price or current value of the loan). The face amount of a distressed mortgage loan will typically exceed the fair market value of the real property securing the loan on the date we commit to acquire the loan. Accordingly, a distressed mortgage loan that is secured by real property and other property may produce a significant amount of non-qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test and a significant portion of a distressed mortgage loan may be treated as a non-qualifying asset for the REIT asset tests once the loan increases in value.

As noted above, the applicable Treasury Regulations require the apportionment of interest for purposes of the 75% gross income test only if the mortgage loan in question is secured by both real property and other property. To the extent that any distressed residential mortgage loan that we acquire is secured by both real property and other property, such loan will be subject to the apportionment rules described above. If we determine that a distressed residential mortgage loan is not subject to the apportionment rules described above because it is secured only by real property, no assurance could be given that the IRS would not assert successfully that the distressed residential mortgage loan was secured by property other than real property. In that case, a significant portion of our interest income from the distressed residential mortgage loan would be treated as nonqualifying income for the 75% gross income test. If we did not satisfy the 75% gross income test, we could lose our REIT qualification or be required to pay a penalty to the IRS.

Accordingly, we may be limited in our ability to invest in distressed mortgage loans and maintain our qualification as a REIT, and our investments in distressed residential mortgage loans could affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

Our ability to invest in and dispose of “to be announced” securities could be limited by our REIT status, and we could lose our REIT status as a result of these investments.

In connection with our investment in Agency IOs, we may purchase Agency RMBS through TBAs, or dollar roll transactions. In certain instances, rather than take delivery of the Agency RMBS subject to a TBA, we will dispose of the TBA through a dollar roll transaction in which we agree to purchase similar securities in the future at a predetermined price or otherwise, which may result in the recognition of income or gains. We account for dollar roll transactions as purchases and sales. The law is unclear regarding whether TBAs will be qualifying assets for the 75% asset test and whether income and gains from dispositions of TBAs will be qualifying income for the 75% gross income test.

Until such time as we seek and receive a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS, or we are advised by counsel that TBAs should be treated as qualifying assets for purposes of the 75% asset test, we will limit our investment in TBAs and any non-qualifying assets to no more than 25% of our assets at the end of any calendar quarter. Further, until such time as we seek and receive a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS or we are advised by counsel that income and gains from the disposition of TBAs should be treated as qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, we will limit our gains from dispositions of TBAs and any non-qualifying income to no more than 25% of our gross income for each calendar year. Accordingly, our ability to purchase Agency RMBS through TBAs and to dispose of TBAs, through dollar roll transactions or otherwise, could be limited.

Moreover, even if we are advised by counsel that TBAs should be treated as qualifying assets or that income and gains from dispositions of TBAs should be treated as qualifying income, it is possible that the IRS could successfully take the position that such assets are not qualifying assets and such income is not qualifying income. In that event, we could be subject to a penalty tax or we could fail to qualify as a REIT if (i) the value of our TBAs, together with our non-qualifying assets for the 75% asset test, exceeded 25% of our gross assets at the end of any calendar quarter or (ii) our income and gains from the disposition of TBAs, together with our non-qualifying income for the 75% gross income test, exceeded 25% of our gross income for any taxable 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 federal income tax purposes and 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 TRS’s 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 federal, state and local corporate income tax and may incur a significant tax liability as a result of those sales.