Edgar Filing: MFA FINANCIAL, INC.

Document

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016

o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number: 1-13991

MFA FINANCIAL, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Maryland (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		13-3974868 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

350 Park Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, New York (Address of principal executive offices)		10022 (Zip Code)

(212) 207-6400

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:



Title of Each Class		Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share		New York Stock Exchange

7.50% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share		New York Stock Exchange

8.00% Senior Notes due 2042		New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.



Large accelerated filer x		Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer o		Smaller reporting company o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No x

On June 30, 2016, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $2.7 billion based on the closing sales price of our common stock on such date as reported on the New York Stock Exchange.

On February 10, 2017, the registrant had a total of 372,841,520 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Annual Meeting of Stockholders scheduled to be held on or about May 24, 2017, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS



PART I

Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	5
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	29
Item 2.	Properties	29
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	29
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	29

PART II

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	30
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	34
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	36
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	73
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	80
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	139
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	139
Item 9B.	Other Information	142

PART III

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	142
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	142
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	142
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	142
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	142

PART IV

Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	143

Signatures		144

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT — This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes “forward-looking” statements within the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include information about possible or assumed future results with respect to the Company’s business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, plans and objectives. You can identify forward-looking statements by such words as “will,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “plan,” “continue,” “intend,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “may” or similar expressions. We caution that any such forward-looking statements made by us are not guarantees of future performance and that actual results may differ materially from these forward-looking statements. We discuss certain factors that affect our business and that may cause our actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements under “Item 1A. Risk Factors” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date on which they are made. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements except as may be required by law.

Table of Contents

In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, references to “we,” “us,” “our” or “the Company” refer to MFA Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries unless specifically stated otherwise or the context otherwise indicates. The following defines certain of the commonly used terms in this Annual Report on Form 10-K: MBS generally refers to mortgage-backed securities secured by pools of residential mortgage loans; Agency MBS refers to MBS that are issued or guaranteed by a federally chartered corporation, such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), or an agency of the U.S. Government, such as the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”); Non-Agency MBS refers to MBS that are not guaranteed by any agency of the U.S. Government or any federally chartered corporation and include (i) Legacy Non-Agency MBS, which are Non-Agency MBS issued prior to 2008, and (ii) 3 Year Step-up securities, which refer primarily to Non-Agency MBS the majority of which are collateralized by re-performing and non-performing loans and are structured with a contractual coupon step-up feature where the coupon increases up to 300 basis points at 36 months from issuance or sooner. Hybrids refer to hybrid mortgage loans that have interest rates that are fixed for a specified period of time and, thereafter, typically adjust annually to an increment over a specified interest rate index; ARMs refer to adjustable-rate mortgage loans and to Hybrids that are past their fixed-rate period, both of which typically have interest rates that adjust annually to an increment over a specified interest rate index; Linked Transactions refer to Non-Agency MBS purchases which were financed with the same counterparty from which they were purchased and for periods prior to 2015 considered linked for financial statement reporting purposes and were reported at fair value on a combined basis; and CRT securities refer to credit risk transfer securities which are general obligations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

GENERAL

We are primarily engaged in the real estate finance business. We engage in our business through subsidiaries that invest, on a leveraged basis, in residential mortgage assets, including Non-Agency MBS, Agency MBS, residential whole loans and CRT securities. Our principal business objective is to deliver shareholder value through the generation of distributable income and through asset performance linked to residential mortgage credit fundamentals. We selectively invest in residential mortgage assets with a focus on credit analysis, projected prepayment rates, interest rate sensitivity and expected return.

We were incorporated in Maryland on July 24, 1997, and began operations on April 10, 1998. We have elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust (or REIT) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must comply with a number of requirements under federal tax law, including that we must distribute at least 90% of our annual REIT taxable income to our stockholders. We have elected to treat certain of our subsidiaries as a taxable REIT subsidiary (or TRS). In general, a TRS may hold assets and engage in activities that a REIT or qualified REIT subsidiary (or QRS) may not hold or engage in directly, and a TRS generally may engage in any real estate or non-real estate related business.

We are a holding company and conduct our real estate finance businesses primarily through wholly-owned subsidiaries, so as to maintain an exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (or the Investment Company Act) by ensuring that less than 40% of the value of our total assets, exclusive of U.S. Government securities and cash items (which we refer to as our adjusted total assets for Investment Company Act purposes), on an unconsolidated basis consist of “investment securities” as defined by the Investment Company Act. We refer to this test as the “40% Test.”

INVESTMENT STRATEGY

As stated above, we primarily invest through subsidiaries in Non-Agency MBS, Agency MBS, residential whole loans and CRT securities.

Our Non-Agency MBS portfolio primarily consists of (i) Legacy Non-Agency MBS and (ii) 3 Year Step-up securities. In addition to Non-Agency MBS investments, we invest in re-performing and non-performing residential whole loans through our interests in certain consolidated trusts. Our strategy of combining investments in Agency MBS, Non-Agency MBS and residential whole loans is designed to generate attractive returns with less overall sensitivity to changes in the yield curve, the general level of interest rates and prepayments. We expect to continue to seek more credit sensitive assets in 2017, such as residential whole loans.

Table of Contents

Our Legacy Non-Agency MBS have been acquired primarily at discounts to face/par value, which we believe serves to mitigate our exposure to credit risk. A portion of the purchase discount on substantially all of our Legacy Non-Agency MBS is designated as a non-accretable discount (also referred to hereafter as Credit Reserve), which effectively mitigates our risk of loss on the mortgages collateralizing such MBS and is not expected to be accreted into interest income. The portion of the purchase discount that is designated as accretable discount is accreted into interest income over the life of the security. The mortgages collateralizing our Legacy Non-Agency MBS consist primarily of ARMs, 30-year fixed-rate mortgages and Hybrids. Legacy Non-Agency ARMs and Hybrids typically exhibit reduced interest rate sensitivity (as compared to fixed-rate Legacy Non-Agency MBS) due to their interest rate adjustments (similar to Agency ARMs and Hybrids). However, yields on Legacy Non-Agency MBS, unlike Agency MBS, also exhibit sensitivity to changes in credit performance. If credit performance improves, the Credit Reserve may be decreased (and accretable discount increased), resulting in a higher yield over the remaining life of the security. Similarly, deteriorating credit performance could increase the Credit Reserve and decrease the yield over the remaining life of the security or other-than-temporary impairment could result. To the extent that higher interest rates in the future are indicative of an improving economy, better employment data and/or higher home prices, it is possible that these factors will improve the credit performance of Legacy Non-Agency MBS and therefore mitigate the interest rate sensitivity of these securities.

Our 3 Year Step-up securities were purchased primarily as new issuances at prices at or around par and represent the senior tranches of the related securitizations. These 3 Year Step-up securities are structured with significant credit enhancement (typically approximately 50%) and the subordinate tranches absorb all credit losses (until those tranches are extinguished) and typically receive no cash flow (interest or principal) until the senior tranche is paid off. Prior to purchase, we analyze the deal structure in order to assess the associated credit risk. Subsequent to purchase, the ongoing credit risk associated with the investment is evaluated by analyzing the extent to which actual credit losses occur that result in a reduction in the amount of subordination enjoyed by our bond. Based on the recent performance of the collateral underlying our 3 Year Step-up securities and current subordination levels, we do not believe that we are currently exposed to significant risk of credit loss on these investments. In addition, the structures of these investments contain a contractual coupon step-up feature, where the coupon on the senior tranche increases up to 300 basis points if the security that we hold has not been redeemed by the issuer at 36 months or sooner. We expect that the combination of the priority cash flow of the senior tranche and the 36-month step-up will result in these securities’ exhibiting short average lives and, accordingly, reduced interest rate sensitivity. Consequently, we believe that 3 Year Step-up securities provide attractive returns given our assessment of the interest rate and credit risk associated with these securities.

The mortgages collateralizing our Agency MBS portfolio are predominantly Hybrids, 15-year fixed-rate mortgages and ARMs. While we have not purchased any Agency MBS since the first quarter of 2014, our Agency MBS were selected to generate attractive returns relative to interest rate and prepayment risks. The Hybrid loans collateralizing our MBS typically have initial fixed-rate periods at origination of three, five, seven or ten years. At the end of this fixed-rate period, these mortgages become adjustable and their interest rates adjust based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (or LIBOR) or in some cases the one-year constant maturity treasury rate (or CMT). These interest rate adjustments are typically limited by periodic caps (which limit the amount of the interest rate change from the prior rate) and lifetime caps (which are maximum interest rates permitted for the life of the mortgage). As coupons earned on Agency Hybrids and ARMs adjust over time as interest rates change, these assets are generally less sensitive to changes in interest rates than are fixed-rate MBS. In general, Hybrid loans and ARMs have 30-year final maturities and they amortize over this 30-year period. While the coupons on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages do not adjust, they amortize according to a 15-year amortization schedule and have a 15-year final maturity. Due to their accelerated amortization and shorter final maturity, these assets are generally less sensitive to changes in long-term interest rates as compared to fixed-rate mortgages with a longer final maturity, such as 30-year mortgages.

During 2016, we continued to invest in more credit sensitive, less interest rate sensitive residential whole loans, which we acquired through certain trusts that are consolidated on our balance sheet for financial reporting purposes. To date, we have focused on purchasing packages of both re-performing and non-performing whole loans. Re-performing loans are typically characterized by borrowers who have experienced payment delinquencies in the past and the amount owed on the mortgage may exceed the value of the property pledged as collateral. These loans are purchased at purchase prices that are discounted (often substantially so) to the contractual loan balance to reflect the impaired credit history of the borrower, the loan-to-value (or LTV) of the loan and the coupon. Non-performing loans are typically characterized by borrowers who have defaulted on their obligations and/or have payment delinquencies of 60 days or more at the time we acquire the loan. These loans are also purchased at purchase prices that are discounted (often substantially so) to the contractual loan balance that reflects primarily the non-performing nature of the loan. Typically, this purchase price is a discount to the expected value of the collateral securing the loan, such value to be realized after foreclosure and liquidation of the property. All of the residential whole loans were purchased by the consolidated trusts on a servicing-released basis, i.e., the sellers of such loans transferred the right to service the loans as part of the sale. Because we do not directly service any loans, we have contracted with loan servicing companies with specific expertise in working with delinquent borrowers in an effort to cure delinquencies through, among other things, loan modification and third-party refinancing. To the extent these efforts are successful, we believe our investments in residential whole loans will yield attractive returns. In

Table of Contents

addition, to the extent that it is not possible to achieve a successful outcome for a particular borrower and the real property collateral must be foreclosed on and liquidated, we believe that the discounted purchase price at which the asset was acquired provides us with a level of protection against financial loss. Given the increase in the size of our residential whole loan investments and our ongoing focus on this asset class, we expect that balances of real estate owned (or REO) property to increase in the short- to medium-term.

FINANCING STRATEGY

Our financing strategy is designed to increase the size of our investment portfolio by borrowing against a substantial portion of the market value of the assets in our portfolio. We primarily use repurchase agreements to finance our holdings of MBS, residential whole loans and CRT securities. We enter into interest rate derivatives to hedge the interest rate risk associated with a portion of our repurchase agreement borrowings. Going forward, in connection with our current and any future investment in residential whole loans, our financing strategy may expand to the use of securitization or other forms of structured financing.

Repurchase agreements, although legally structured as sale and repurchase transactions, are financing contracts (i.e., borrowings) under which we pledge our residential mortgage assets as collateral to secure loans with repurchase agreement counterparties (i.e., lenders). Repurchase agreements involve the transfer of the pledged collateral to a lender at an agreed upon price in exchange for such lender’s simultaneous agreement to return the same security back to the borrower at a future date (i.e., the maturity of the borrowing) at a higher price. The difference between the sale price that we receive and the repurchase price that we pay represents interest paid to the lender. Our cost of borrowings under repurchase agreements is generally LIBOR based. Under our repurchase agreements, we pledge our securities as collateral to secure the borrowing, which is equal in value to a specified percentage of the fair value of the pledged collateral, while we retain beneficial ownership of the pledged collateral. At the maturity of a repurchase financing, unless the repurchase financing is renewed with the same counterparty, we are required to repay the loan including any accrued interest and concurrently receive back our pledged collateral from the lender. With the consent of the lender, we may renew a repurchase financing at the then prevailing financing terms. Margin calls, whereby a lender requires that we pledge additional securities or cash as collateral to secure borrowings under our repurchase financing with such lender, are routinely experienced by us when the value of the MBS pledged as collateral declines as a result of principal amortization and prepayments or due to changes in market interest rates, spreads or other market conditions. We also may make margin calls on counterparties when collateral values increase.

In order to reduce our exposure to counterparty-related risk, we generally seek to enter into repurchase agreements and other financing arrangements, and derivatives, with a diversified group of financial institutions. At December 31, 2016, we had outstanding balances under repurchase agreements with 31 separate lenders.

In July 2015, our wholly-owned subsidiary, MFA Insurance, Inc. (or MFA Insurance), became a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (or FHLB) of Des Moines. In January, 2016, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (or FHFA) released its final rule amending its regulation on FHLB membership, which, among other things, provided termination rules for current captive insurance members. As a result of such regulation, MFA Insurance is not permitted to obtain new advances or renewal of existing advances and is required to terminate its FHLB membership and repay any outstanding advances by February 19, 2017. At December 31, 2016, MFA Insurance had FHLB advances of approximately $215.0 million, which were all repaid in January 2017.

In addition to repurchase agreements and 8% Senior Notes due 2042 (or Senior Notes), we may also use other sources of funding in the future to finance our MBS, whole loan and CRT securities portfolios, including, but not limited to, other types of collateralized borrowings, loan agreements, lines of credit or the issuance of debt and/or equity securities.

COMPETITION

We operate in the mortgage REIT industry. We believe that our principal competitors in the business of acquiring and holding residential mortgage assets of the types in which we invest are financial institutions, such as banks, savings and loan institutions, specialty finance companies, insurance companies, institutional investors, including mutual funds and pension funds, hedge funds and other mortgage REITs, as well as the U.S. Federal Reserve as part of its monetary policy activities. Some of these entities may not be subject to the same regulatory constraints (i.e., REIT compliance or maintaining an exemption under the Investment Company Act) as us. In addition, many of these entities have greater financial resources and access to capital than us. The existence of these entities, as well as the possibility of additional entities forming in the future, may increase the competition for the acquisition of residential mortgage assets, resulting in higher prices and lower yields on such assets.

Table of Contents

EMPLOYEES

At December 31, 2016, we had 50 full-time and two part-time employees. We believe that our relationship with our employees is good. None of our employees are unionized or represented under a collective bargaining agreement.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

We maintain a website at www.mfafinancial.com. We make available, free of charge, on our website our (a) Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K (including any amendments thereto), proxy statements and other information (or, collectively, the Company Documents) filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (or SEC), as soon as reasonably practicable after such documents are so filed or furnished, (b) Corporate Governance Guidelines, (c) Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and (d) written charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors (or our Board). Our Company Documents filed with, or furnished to, the SEC are also available at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We also provide copies of the foregoing materials, free of charge, to stockholders who request them. Requests should be directed to the attention of our General Counsel at MFA Financial, Inc., 350 Park Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, New York 10022.

Table of Contents

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

This section highlights specific risks that could affect our Company and its business. Readers should carefully consider each of the following risks and all of the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Based on the information currently known to us, we believe the following information identifies the most significant risk factors affecting our Company. However, the risks and uncertainties we face are not limited to those described below. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial may also adversely affect our business.

If any of the following risks and uncertainties develops into actual events or if the circumstances described in the risks and uncertainties occur or continue to occur, these events or circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity. These events could also have a negative effect on the trading price of our securities.

General

The results of our business operations are affected by a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control, and primarily depend on, among other things, the level of our net interest income, the market value of our assets, which is driven by numerous factors, including the supply and demand for residential mortgage assets in the marketplace, the terms and availability of adequate financing, general economic and real estate conditions (both on a national and local level), the impact of government actions in the real estate and mortgage sector, and the credit performance of our credit sensitive residential mortgage assets. Our net interest income varies primarily as a result of changes in interest rates, the slope of the yield curve (i.e., the differential between long-term and short-term interest rates), borrowing costs (i.e., our interest expense) and prepayment speeds on our MBS, the behavior of which involves various risks and uncertainties. Interest rates and conditional prepayment rates (or CPRs) (which measure the amount of unscheduled principal prepayment on a bond as a percentage of the bond balance), vary according to the type of investment, conditions in the financial markets, competition and other factors, none of which can be predicted with any certainty. Our operating results also depend upon our ability to effectively manage the risks associated with our business operations, including interest rate, prepayment, financing and credit risks, while maintaining our qualification as a REIT.

We may change our investment strategy, operating policies and/or asset allocations without stockholder consent, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

We may change our investment strategy, operating policies and/or asset allocation with respect to investments, acquisitions, leverage, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization and distributions at any time without the consent of our stockholders. A change in our investment strategy may increase our exposure to interest rate risk, credit risk, default risk and/or real estate market fluctuations. Furthermore, a change in our asset allocation could result in our making investments in asset categories different from our historical investments. For example, in recent years, we have made new investments principally in credit sensitive assets such as residential whole loans, 3 Year Step-up securities and CRT securities, while we have let our investments in more interest-rate sensitive assets, such as Agency MBS, run-off. These changes could materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, the market price of our common stock or our ability to pay dividends or make distributions.

Credit and Other Risks Related to Our Investments

Our investments in Non-Agency MBS (including 3 Year Step-up securities) involve credit risk, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

The holder of a mortgage or MBS assumes the risk that the related borrowers may default on their obligations to make full and timely payments of principal and interest. Under our investment policy, we have the ability to acquire Non-Agency MBS, residential whole loans and other investment assets of lower credit quality. In general, our portfolios of Legacy Non-Agency MBS and 3 Year Step-up securities (which, as of December 31, 2016 represented 46.7% of our total assets, and has grown in recent periods as we focus on investment opportunities in more credit-sensitive assets, while allowing our Agency MBS to runoff) carry greater investment risk than Agency MBS because they are not guaranteed as to principal or interest by the U.S. Government, any federal agency or any federally chartered corporation. Higher-than-expected rates of default and/or higher-than-expected loss severities on the mortgages underlying these investments could adversely affect the value of these assets. Accordingly, defaults in the payment of principal and/or interest on our Legacy Non-Agency MBS, 3 Year Step-up securities and other investment assets of less-than-high credit quality would likely result in our incurring losses of income from, and/or losses in market value relating to, these assets, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

Table of Contents

Our investments in re-performing and non-performing residential whole loans involve credit risks, some of which are different from our Non-Agency MBS, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

Our portfolio of residential whole loans continued to be our fastest growing asset class during 2016, and represented approximately 11.3% of our total assets as of December 31, 2016. We expect that our investment portfolio in residential whole loans will continue to increase during 2017, as we seek opportunities in these credit sensitive assets. As a holder of residential whole loans, we are subject to the risk that the related borrowers may default or have defaulted on their obligations to make full and timely payments of principal and interest. (In addition to the credit risk associated with these assets, residential whole loans are less liquid than certain of our other credit-sensitive assets, such as Non-Agency MBS, which may make them more difficult to dispose of if the need or desire arises.) If actual results are different from our assumptions in determining the prices paid to acquire such loans, particularly if the market value of the underlying properties decreases significantly subsequent to purchase, we may incur significant losses, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

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

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

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

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

We have investments in Non-Agency MBS collateralized by Alt A loans and may also have investments collateralized by subprime mortgage loans, which, due to lower underwriting standards, are subject to increased risk of losses.

We have certain investments in Non-Agency MBS backed by collateral pools containing mortgage loans that were originated under underwriting standards that were less strict than those used in underwriting “prime mortgage loans.” These lower standards permitted mortgage loans, often with LTV ratios in excess of 80%, to be made to borrowers having impaired credit histories, lower credit scores, higher debt-to-income ratios and/or unverified income. Difficult economic conditions, including increased interest rates and lower home prices, can result in Alt A and subprime mortgage loans having increased rates of delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss (such as during the credit crisis of 2007-2008 and the housing crisis that followed), and are likely to otherwise experience delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss rates that are higher, and that may be substantially higher, than those experienced by mortgage loans underwritten in a more traditional manner. Thus, because of higher delinquency rates and losses associated with Alt A and subprime mortgage loans, the performance of our Non-Agency MBS that are backed by these types of loans could be correspondingly adversely affected, which could materially adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

Table of Contents

We are subject to counterparty risk and may be unable to seek indemnity or require counterparties to repurchase residential whole loans if they breach representations and warranties, which could cause us to suffer losses.

In connection with our residential whole loan investments, we typically enter into a loan purchase agreement, as buyer, of the loans from a seller. When we invest in mortgage loans, sellers typically make very limited representations and warranties about such loans that are very limited both in scope and duration. Residential mortgage loan purchase agreements may entitle the purchaser of the loans to seek indemnity or demand repurchase or substitution of the loans in the event the seller of the loans breaches a representation or warranty given to the purchaser. However, there can be no assurance that a mortgage loan purchase agreement will contain appropriate representations and warranties, that we or the trust that purchases the mortgage loans would be able to enforce a contractual right to repurchase or substitution, or that the seller of the loans will remain solvent or otherwise be able to honor its obligations under its mortgage loan purchase agreements. The inability to obtain or enforce an indemnity or require repurchase of a significant number of loans could require us to absorb the associated losses, and adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and business.

The due diligence we undertake on potential investments may be limited and/or not reveal all of the risks associated with such investments and may not reveal other weaknesses in such assets, which could lead to losses.

Before making an investment, we typically conduct (either directly or using third parties) certain due diligence. There can be no assurance that we will conduct any specific level of due diligence, or that, among other things, our due diligence processes will uncover all relevant facts, which could result in losses on these assets to the extent we ultimately acquire them, which, in turn, could adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and business.

We have experienced, and may in the future experience, declines in the market value of certain of our investment securities resulting in our recording impairments, which have had, and may in the future have, an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

A decline in the market value of our MBS or other investment securities may require us to recognize an “other-than-temporary impairment” (or OTTI) against such assets under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (or GAAP). When the fair value of an available-for-sale (or AFS) investment security is less than its amortized cost at the balance sheet date, the security is considered impaired. We assess our impaired securities on at least a quarterly basis and designate such impairments as either “temporary” or “other-than-temporary.” If we intend to sell an impaired security, or it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the impaired security before any anticipated recovery, then we must recognize an OTTI through charges to earnings equal to the entire difference between the investment’s amortized cost and its fair value at the balance sheet date. If we do not expect to sell an other-than-temporarily impaired security, only the portion of the OTTI that is related to credit losses is required to be recognized through charges to earnings with the remainder recognized through accumulated other comprehensive income/(loss) (or AOCI) on our consolidated balance sheets. Impairments recognized through other comprehensive income/(loss) (or OCI) do not impact earnings. Following the recognition of an OTTI through earnings, a new cost basis is established for the security and may not be adjusted for subsequent recoveries in fair value through earnings. However, OTTIs recognized through charges to earnings may be accreted back to the amortized cost basis of the security on a prospective basis through interest income. The determination as to whether an OTTI exists and, if so, the amount of credit impairment recognized in earnings is subjective, as such determinations are based on factual information available at the time of assessment as well as on our estimates of the future performance and cash flow projections. As a result, the timing and amount of OTTIs constitute material estimates that are susceptible to significant change.

Our use of models in connection with the valuation of our assets subjects us to potential risks in the event that such models are incorrect, misleading or based on incomplete information.

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

Table of Contents

Valuations of some of our assets are subject to inherent uncertainty, may be based on estimates, may fluctuate over short periods of time and may differ from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these assets existed.

While the determination of the fair value of our investment assets takes into consideration valuations provided by third-party dealers and pricing services, the final determination of exit price fair values for our investment assets is based on our judgment, and such valuations may differ from those provided by third-party dealers and pricing services. Valuations of certain assets may be difficult to obtain or may not be reliable. In general, dealers and pricing services heavily disclaim their valuations as such valuations are not intended to be binding bid prices. Additionally, dealers may claim to furnish valuations only as an accommodation and without special compensation, and so they may disclaim any and all liability arising out of any inaccuracy or incompleteness in valuations. Depending on the complexity and illiquidity of an asset, valuations of the same asset can vary substantially from one dealer or pricing service to another.

Our investments in residential whole loans are difficult to value and are dependent upon the ability to finance and refinance such investments. The inability to do so could materially and adversely affect our liquidity and results of operations.

The difficulty in valuation is particularly significant with respect to our less liquid investments such as our re-performing loans (or RPLs) and non-performing loans (or NPLs). RPLs are loans on which a borrower was previously delinquent but has resumed repaying. Our ability to sell RPLs for a profit depends on the borrower continuing to make payments. An RPL could become a NPL, which could reduce our earnings. Our investments in residential whole loans may require us to engage in workout negotiations, restructuring and/or the possibility of foreclosure. These processes may be lengthy and expensive. If loans become REO, we, through a designated servicer that we retain, will have to manage these properties and may not be able to sell them. See “Our Ability to Sell REO on Terms Acceptable to Us or at All May Be Limited.”

We may work with our third-party servicers and seek to refinance an NPL or RPL to realize greater value from such loan. However, there may be impediments to executing a refinancing strategy for NPLs and RPLs. For example, many mortgage lenders have adjusted their loan programs and underwriting standards, which has reduced the availability of mortgage credit to prospective borrowers. This has resulted in reduced availability of financing alternatives for borrowers seeking to refinance their mortgage loans. In addition, the value of some borrowers’ homes may have declined below the amount of the mortgage loans on such homes resulting in higher loan-to-value ratios, which has left the borrowers with insufficient equity in their homes to permit them to refinance. To the extent prevailing mortgage interest rates rise from their current low levels, these risks would be exacerbated. The effect of the above would likely serve to make refinancing of NPLs and RPLs potentially more difficult and less profitable for us.

Our results of operations, financial condition and business could be materially adversely affected if our fair value determinations of these assets were materially higher than the values that would exist if a ready market existed for these assets.

Mortgage loan modification and refinancing programs and future legislative action may materially adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, our MBS and residential whole loan investments.

The U.S. Government, through the U.S. Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury Department, the Federal Housing Administration (or the FHA) and other agencies implemented a number of federal programs designed to assist homeowners, including the Home Affordable Modification Program (or HAMP), which provided homeowners with assistance in avoiding residential mortgage loan foreclosures, the Hope for Homeowners Program (or H4H Program), which allowed certain distressed borrowers to refinance their mortgages into FHA-insured loans in order to avoid foreclosure, 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 without new mortgage insurance, up to an unlimited loan-to-value ratio for fixed-rate mortgages. While some of these programs (such as HAMP and the H4H Program) have since expired, the U.S. Treasury Department, FHFA, FHA, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB) have issued guiding principles for future loss mitigation programs. In addition, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have announced their new Flex Modification foreclosure prevention program, developed at the direction of FHFA, that will launch in 2017. Federal loss mitigation programs, as well as proprietary loss mitigation programs offered by investors and servicers, may involve, among other things, the modification of mortgage loans to reduce the principal amount of the loans (through forbearance and/or forgiveness) and/or the rate of interest payable on the loans, or to extend the payment terms of the loans. Especially with our Non-Agency MBS and residential whole loan investments, a continuing number of loan modifications with respect to a given underlying loan, including, but not limited to, those related to principal forgiveness and coupon reduction, could negatively impact the realized yields and cash flows on such investments. These loan modification programs, future legislative or regulatory actions, including possible amendments to the bankruptcy laws, that result in the modification of outstanding residential mortgage loans, as well as changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for refinancing mortgage loans with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae, may materially adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, these assets.

Table of Contents

We may be adversely affected by risks affecting borrowers or the asset or property types in which certain of our investments may be concentrated at any given time, as well as from unfavorable changes in the related geographic regions.

Our assets are not subject to any geographic, diversification or concentration limitations except that we concentrate in residential mortgage-related investments. Accordingly, our investment portfolio may be concentrated by geography, asset, property type and/or borrower, increasing the risk of loss to us if the particular concentration in our portfolio is subject to greater risks or is undergoing adverse developments. In addition, adverse conditions in the areas where the properties securing or otherwise underlying our investments are located (including business layoffs or downsizing, industry slowdowns, changing demographics and other factors) and local real estate conditions (such as oversupply or reduced demand) may have an adverse effect on the value of our investments. A material decline in the demand for real estate in these areas may materially and adversely affect us. Lack of diversification can increase the correlation of non-performance and foreclosure risks to these investments.

Our investments in residential whole loans subject us to servicing-related risks, including those associated with foreclosure and liquidation.

The residential whole loans that have been acquired to date were purchased together with the related mortgage servicing rights. We rely on third-party servicers to service and manage the mortgages underlying our residential whole loans. The ultimate returns generated by these investments may depend on the quality of the servicer. If a servicer is not vigilant in seeing that borrowers make their required monthly payments, borrowers may be less likely to make these payments, resulting in a higher frequency of default. If a servicer takes longer to liquidate non-performing mortgages, our losses related to those loans may be higher than originally anticipated. Any failure by servicers to service these mortgages and/or to competently manage and dispose of REO properties could negatively impact the value of these investments and our financial performance. In addition, while we have contracted with third-party servicers to carry out the actual servicing of the loans (including all direct interface with the borrowers), we are nevertheless ultimately responsible, vis-à-vis the borrowers and state and federal regulators, for ensuring that the loans are serviced in accordance with the terms of the related notes and mortgages and applicable law and regulation. (See “Regulatory Risk and Risks Related to the Investment Company Act of 1940 -- Our business is subject to extensive regulation”) In light of the current regulatory environment, such exposure could be significant even though we might have contractual claims against our servicers for any failure to service the loans to the required standard.

When one of our residential whole loans is foreclosed upon, title to the underlying property is taken by a Company subsidiary. The foreclosure process, especially in judicial foreclosure states such as New York, Florida and New Jersey, can be lengthy and expensive, and the delays and costs involved in completing a foreclosure, and then subsequently liquidating the REO property through sale, may materially increase any related loss. In addition, at such time as title is taken to a foreclosed property, it may require more extensive rehabilitation than we estimated at acquisition. Thus, a material amount of foreclosed residential mortgage loans, particularly in the states mentioned above, could result in significant losses in our residential whole loan portfolio and could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

The expanding body of federal, state and local regulations and the investigations of servicers may increase their cost of compliance and the risks of noncompliance, and may adversely affect their ability to perform their servicing obligations.

We have engaged, and we depend upon, third-party servicers to service the residential mortgage loans that we acquire through consolidated trusts. We also depend upon the servicers that have been hired by issuers to service the mortgages underlying the MBS that we acquire. The mortgage servicing business is subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local governmental authorities and is subject to various laws and judicial and administrative decisions imposing requirements and restrictions and increased compliance costs on a substantial portion of their operations. The volume of new or modified laws and regulations has increased in recent years. Some jurisdictions and municipalities have enacted laws that restrict loan servicing activities, including delaying or preventing foreclosures or forcing the modification of certain mortgages.

Federal legislation has also been proposed which, among other things, could hinder the ability of a servicer to foreclose promptly on defaulted residential loans, and which could result in servicers being held responsible for violations in the residential loan origination process. Certain mortgage lenders and third-party servicers have voluntarily, or as part of settlements with law enforcement authorities, established loan modification programs relating to loans they hold or service. These federal, state and local legislative or regulatory actions that result in modifications of our outstanding mortgages, or interests in mortgages acquired by us either directly through consolidated trusts or through our investments in residential MBS, may adversely affect the value of, and returns on, such investments. Mortgage servicers may be incented by the Federal government to pursue such loan modifications, as well as forbearance plans and other actions intended to prevent foreclosure, even if such loan modifications and other actions are not in the best interests of the beneficial owners of the mortgages. As a consequence of the foregoing matters, our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends, if any, to our stockholders may be adversely affected.

Table of Contents

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

The payments of principal and interest we receive on our Agency MBS, which depend directly upon payments on the mortgages underlying such securities, are guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are U.S. Government-sponsored entities (or GSEs), but their guarantees are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States (although the FHFA largely controls their actions through its conservatorship of the two GSEs, which occurred in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis). Ginnie Mae is part of a U.S. Government agency and its guarantees are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

Although the U.S. Government has undertaken several measures to support the positive net worth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since the financial crisis of 2007-2008, there is no guarantee of continuing capital support if such support were to become necessary. These uncertainties lead to questions about the availability of, and trading market for, Agency MBS. Despite the steps taken by the U.S. Government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could default on their guarantee obligations which would materially and adversely affect the value of our Agency MBS. Accordingly, if these government actions are inadequate in the future and the GSEs were to suffer losses, be significantly reformed, or cease to exist (as discussed below), our business, operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

In addition, the problems faced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac resulting in their being placed into federal conservatorship and receiving significant U.S. Government support have sparked serious debate among federal policy makers regarding the continued role of the U.S. Government in providing liquidity for mortgage loans. In 2011, the Obama administration proposed a plan to wind down the GSEs, and both houses of Congress have considered legislation to reform the GSEs, their functions and their missions. President Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury has made comments indicating that housing finance reform may be on the agenda for the Trump administration, but no detailed proposals have yet been put forth. The future roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may be reduced (perhaps significantly) and the nature of their guarantee obligations could be limited relative to historical measurements. Alternatively, it is still possible that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be dissolved entirely or privatized, and, as mentioned above, the U.S. Government could determine to stop providing liquidity support of any kind to the mortgage market. Any changes to the nature of the GSEs or their guarantee obligations could redefine what constitutes an Agency MBS and could have broad adverse implications for the market and our business, operations and financial condition. If Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac were to be eliminated, or their structures were to change radically (in particular a limitation or removal of the guarantee obligation), we could be unable to acquire additional Agency MBS and our existing Agency MBS could be materially and adversely impacted.

We could be negatively affected in a number of ways depending on the manner in which events unfold for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We rely on our Agency MBS as collateral for a significant portion of our financings under our repurchase agreements. Any decline in their value, or perceived market uncertainty about their value, would make it more difficult for us to obtain financing on our Agency MBS on acceptable terms or at all, or to maintain our compliance with the terms of any financing transactions.

As indicated above, future legislation could, among other things, reform the GSEs and their functions, or nationalize, privatize, or eliminate them entirely. Any law affecting the GSEs may create market uncertainty and have the effect of reducing the actual or perceived credit quality of securities issued or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. As a result, such laws could increase the risk of loss on our investments in Agency MBS guaranteed by Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac. It also is possible that such laws could adversely impact the market for such securities and the spreads at which they trade. All of the foregoing could materially and adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition.

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

If the market value or income potential of our MBS, residential mortgage investments and other assets declines as a result of increased interest rates, prepayment rates or other factors, we may need to increase certain real estate investments and income and/or liquidate our non-qualifying assets in order to maintain our REIT qualification or exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act. If the decline in real estate asset values and/or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish. This difficulty could be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of certain investments. We might have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent our REIT qualification and Investment Company Act considerations. (See “Regulatory Risk and Risks Related to the Investment Company Act of 1940” and “Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT and the Taxation of Our Assets.”)

Table of Contents

Our ability to sell REO on terms acceptable to us or at all may be limited.

REO properties are illiquid relative to other assets we own. Furthermore, real estate markets are affected by many factors that are beyond our control, such as general and local economic conditions, availability of financing, interest rates and supply and demand. We cannot predict whether we will be able to sell any REO for the price or on the terms set by us or whether any price or other terms offered by a prospective purchaser would be acceptable to us. We also cannot predict the length of time needed to find a willing purchaser and to close the sale of an REO. In certain circumstances, we may be required to expend cash to correct defects or to make improvements before a property can be sold, and we cannot assure that we will have cash available to correct defects or make improvements. As a result, our ownership of REOs could materially and adversely affect our liquidity and results of operations.

Prepayment and Reinvestment Risk

Prepayment rates on the mortgage loans underlying our MBS may materially adversely affect our profitability or result in liquidity shortfalls that could require us to sell assets in unfavorable market conditions.

The MBS that we acquire are secured by pools of mortgages on residential properties. In general, the mortgages collateralizing our MBS may be prepaid at any time without penalty. Prepayments on our MBS result when borrowers satisfy (i.e., pay off) the mortgage upon selling or refinancing their mortgaged property. When we acquire a particular MBS, we anticipate that the underlying mortgage loans will prepay at a projected rate which, together with expected coupon income, provides us with an expected yield on that MBS. If we purchase MBS at a premium to par value, and borrowers then prepay the underlying mortgage loans at a faster rate than we expected, the increased prepayments on the MBS would result in a yield lower than expected on such securities because we would be required to amortize the related premium on an accelerated basis. Conversely, if we purchase MBS at a discount to par value, and borrowers then prepay the underlying mortgage loans at a slower rate than we expected, the decreased prepayments on the MBS would result in a lower yield than expected on such securities and/or may result in OTTI if the fair value of the security is less than its amortized cost.

Prepayment rates on mortgage loans are influenced by changes in mortgage and market interest rates and a variety of economic, geographic, governmental and other factors beyond our control. Consequently, prepayment rates cannot be predicted with certainty and no strategy can completely insulate us from prepayment risks. In periods of declining interest rates, prepayment rates on mortgage loans generally increase. Because of prepayment risk, the market value of our MBS (and in particular our Agency MBS) may benefit less than other fixed income securities from a decline in interest rates. If general interest rates decline at the same time, we would likely not be able to reinvest the proceeds of the prepayments that we receive in assets yielding as much as those yields on the assets that were prepaid.

With respect to Agency MBS, we have, at times, purchased securities that have a higher coupon rate than the prevailing market interest rates. In exchange for a higher coupon rate, we typically pay a premium over par value to acquire such securities. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, we amortize premiums on our MBS over the life of the related MBS. If the underlying mortgage loans securing these securities prepay at a more rapid rate than anticipated, we will be required to amortize the related premiums on an accelerated basis, which could adversely affect our profitability. Defaults on the mortgages underlying Agency MBS typically have the same effect as loan prepayments because of the underlying Agency guarantee. As of December 31, 2016, we had net purchase premiums on our Agency MBS of $135.1 million (or 3.8% of current par value) and net purchase discounts on our Non-Agency MBS of $972.4 million (or 15.7% of current par value).

Prepayments, which are the primary feature of MBS that distinguishes them from other types of bonds, are difficult to predict and can vary significantly over time. As the holder of MBS, we receive a monthly payment equal to a portion of our investment principal in a particular MBS as the underlying mortgages are prepaid. With respect to Agency MBS, we typically receive notice of monthly principal prepayments on the fifth business day of each month (such day is commonly referred to as “factor day”) and receive the related scheduled payment on a specified later date, which for (a) our Agency ARM-MBS and fixed-rate Agency MBS guaranteed by Fannie Mae is the 25th day of the month (or next business day thereafter), (b) our Agency ARM-MBS guaranteed by Freddie Mac is the 15th day of the following month (or next business day thereafter), (c) our fixed-rate Agency MBS guaranteed by Freddie Mac is the 15th day of the month (or next business day thereafter), and (d) our Agency ARM-MBS guaranteed by Ginnie Mae is the 20th day of that month (or next business day thereafter). With respect to our Non-Agency MBS, we typically receive notice of monthly principal prepayments and the related scheduled payment on the 25th day of each month (or next business day thereafter). In general, on the date each month that principal prepayments are announced (i.e., factor day for Agency MBS), the value of our MBS pledged as collateral under our repurchase agreements is reduced by the amount of the prepaid principal and, as a result, our lenders will typically initiate a margin call that requires us to pledge additional collateral in the form of cash or additional MBS, in an amount equal to the prepaying principal, in order to re-establish the required ratio of borrowing to collateral value under such repurchase agreements. Accordingly, in the case of Agency MBS, the announcement on factor day of

Table of Contents

principal prepayments occurs prior to our receipt of the related scheduled payment. This timing differential creates a short-term receivable for us in the amount of any such principal prepayments; however, under our repurchase agreements, we may receive a margin call in the amount of the related reduction in value of the Agency MBS and be required to post on or about factor day additional cash or other collateral in the amount of the prepaying principal to be received, which thereby would reduce our liquidity during the period in which the short-term receivable is outstanding. As a result, in order to meet any such margin calls, we might be forced to sell assets in order to maintain adequate liquidity. Forced sales, particularly under adverse market conditions, may result in lower sales prices than sales made under ordinary market conditions in the normal course of business. If our MBS were to be liquidated at prices below our amortized cost (i.e., our cost basis) of such assets, we would incur losses, which could materially adversely affect our earnings. In addition, in order to continue to earn a return on this prepaid principal, we must reinvest it in additional MBS or other assets; however, in a declining interest rate environment, we might earn a lower return on our reinvested funds as compared to the return earned on the MBS that had prepaid.

Prepayments may have a materially negative impact on our financial results, the effects of which depend on, among other things, the timing and amount of the prepayment delay on Agency MBS, the amount of unamortized premium on MBS prepayments, the rate at which prepayments are made on our Non-Agency MBS, the reinvestment lag and the availability of suitable reinvestment opportunities.

Risks Related to Our Use of Leverage

Our business strategy involves the use of leverage, and we may not achieve what we believe to be optimal levels of leverage or we may become overleveraged, which may materially adversely affect our liquidity, results of operations or financial condition.

Our business strategy involves the use of borrowing or “leverage.” Pursuant to our leverage strategy, we borrow against a substantial portion of the market value of our residential mortgage investments and use the borrowed funds to finance our investment portfolio and the acquisition of additional investment assets. Although we are not required to maintain any particular debt-to-equity ratio, certain of our borrowing agreements contain provisions requiring us not to have a debt-to-equity ratio exceeding specified levels. Future increases in the amount by which the collateral value is required to contractually exceed the repurchase transaction loan amount, decreases in the market value of our residential mortgage investments, increases in interest rate volatility and changes in the availability of acceptable financing could cause us to be unable to achieve the amount of leverage we believe to be optimal. The return on our assets and cash available for distribution to our stockholders may be reduced to the extent that changes in market conditions prevent us from achieving the desired amount of leverage on our investments or cause the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income earned on our leveraged assets. If the interest income on the residential mortgage investments that we have purchased with borrowed funds fails to cover the interest expense of the related borrowings, we will experience net interest losses and may experience net losses from operations. Such losses could be significant as a result of our leveraged structure. The use of leverage to finance our residential mortgage investments involves a number of other risks, including, among other things, the following:

•

Adverse developments involving major financial institutions or involving one of our lenders could result in a rapid reduction in our ability to borrow and materially adversely affect our business, profitability and liquidity. As of December 31, 2016, we had amounts outstanding under repurchase agreements with 31 separate lenders. A material adverse development involving one or more major financial institutions or the financial markets in general could result in our lenders reducing our access to funds available under our repurchase agreements or terminating such repurchase agreements altogether. Because all of our repurchase agreements are uncommitted and renewable at the discretion of our lenders, our lenders could determine to reduce or terminate our access to future borrowings at virtually any time, which could materially adversely affect our business and profitability. Furthermore, if a number of our lenders became unwilling or unable to continue to provide us with financing, we could be forced to sell assets, including MBS in an unrealized loss position, in order to maintain liquidity. Forced sales, particularly under adverse market conditions may result in lower sales prices than ordinary market sales made in the normal course of business. If our residential mortgage investments were liquidated at prices below our amortized cost (i.e., the cost basis) of such assets, we would incur losses, which could adversely affect our earnings. In addition, uncertainty in the global finance market and weak economic conditions in Europe, including as a result of the United Kingdom’s decision to exit from the European Union (commonly referred to as “Brexit”), could cause the conditions described above to have a more pronounced affect on our European counterparties.

•

Our profitability may be materially adversely affected by a reduction in our leverage. As long as we earn a positive spread between interest and other income we earn on our leveraged assets and our borrowing costs, we believe that we can generally increase our profitability by using greater amounts of leverage. There can be no assurance, however, that repurchase financing will remain an efficient source of long-term financing for our assets. The amount of leverage that

Table of Contents

we use may be limited because our lenders might not make funding available to us at acceptable rates or they may require that we provide additional collateral to secure our borrowings. If our financing strategy is not viable, we will have to find alternative forms of financing for our assets which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at acceptable rates. In addition, in response to certain interest rate and investment environments or to changes in market liquidity, we could adopt a strategy of reducing our leverage by selling assets or not reinvesting principal payments as MBS amortize and/or prepay, thereby decreasing the outstanding amount of our related borrowings. Such an action could reduce interest income, interest expense and net income, the extent of which would be dependent on the level of reduction in assets and liabilities as well as the sale prices for which the assets were sold.

•

If we are unable to renew our borrowings at acceptable interest rates, it may force us to sell assets under adverse market conditions, which may materially adversely affect our liquidity and profitability. Since we rely primarily on borrowings under repurchase agreements to finance our residential mortgage investments, our ability to achieve our investment objectives depends on our ability to borrow funds in sufficient amounts and on acceptable terms, and on our ability to renew or replace maturing borrowings on a continuous basis. Our repurchase agreement credit lines are renewable at the discretion of our lenders and, as such, do not contain guaranteed roll-over terms. Our ability to enter into repurchase transactions in the future will depend on the market value of our residential mortgage investments pledged to secure the specific borrowings, the availability of acceptable financing and market liquidity and other conditions existing in the lending market at that time. If we are not able to renew or replace maturing borrowings, we could be forced to sell assets, including MBS in an unrealized loss position, in order to maintain liquidity. Forced sales, particularly under adverse market conditions could result in lower sales prices than ordinary market sales made in the normal course of business. If our residential mortgage investments were liquidated at prices below our amortized cost (i.e., the cost basis) of such assets, we would incur losses, which could materially adversely affect our earnings.

•

A decline in the market value of our assets may result in margin calls that may force us to sell assets under adverse market conditions, which may materially adversely affect our liquidity and profitability. In general, the market value of our residential mortgage investments is impacted by changes in interest rates, prevailing market yields and other market conditions, including home prices A decline in the market value of our residential mortgage investments may limit our ability to borrow against such assets or result in lenders initiating margin calls, which require a pledge of additional collateral or cash to re-establish the required ratio of borrowing to collateral value, under our repurchase agreements. Posting additional collateral or cash to support our credit will reduce our liquidity and limit our ability to leverage our assets, which could materially adversely affect our business. As a result, we could be forced to sell a portion of our assets, including MBS in an unrealized loss position, in order to maintain liquidity.

•

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 could incur losses. When we engage in repurchase transactions, we generally transfer securities to lenders (i.e., repurchase agreement counterparties) and receive cash from such lenders. Because the cash we receive from the lender when we initially transfer the securities to the lender is less than the value of those securities (this difference is referred to as the “haircut”), if the lender defaults on its obligation to transfer the same securities 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 securities). See Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, for further discussion regarding risks related to exposure to financial institution counterparties in light of recent market conditions. Our exposure to defaults by counterparties may be more pronounced during periods of significant volatility in the market conditions for mortgages and mortgage-related assets as well as the broader financial markets. At December 31, 2016, we had greater than 5% stockholders’ equity at risk to the following repurchase agreement counterparties: Wells Fargo (approximately 12.8%), RBC (approximately 9.0%), Goldman Sachs (approximately 7.0%), Credit Suisse (approximately 6.3%) and UBS (approximately 5.5%).

In addition, generally, if we default on one of our obligations under a repurchase transaction with a particular lender, that lender can elect to terminate the transaction and cease entering into additional repurchase transactions with us. In addition, some of our repurchase agreements contain cross-default provisions, so that if a default occurs under any one agreement, the lenders under our other repurchase agreements could also declare a default. Any losses we incur on our repurchase transactions could materially adversely affect our earnings and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

•

Our use of repurchase agreements to borrow money may give our lenders greater rights in the event of bankruptcy. Borrowings made under repurchase agreements may qualify for special treatment under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. If a lender under one of our repurchase agreements defaults on its obligations, it may be difficult for us to recover our assets pledged as collateral to such lender. In the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of a lender during the term of a repurchase

Table of Contents

agreement, the lender may be permitted, under applicable insolvency laws, to repudiate the contract, and our claim against the lender for damages may be treated simply as an unsecured creditor. In addition, if the lender is a broker or dealer subject to the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, or an insured depository institution subject to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, our ability to exercise our rights to recover our securities under a repurchase agreement or to be compensated for any damages resulting from the lender’s insolvency may be further limited by those statutes. These claims would be subject to significant delay and, if and when received, may be substantially less than the damages we actually incur. In addition, in the event of our insolvency or bankruptcy, certain repurchase agreements may qualify for special treatment under the Bankruptcy Code, the effect of which, among other things, would be to allow the creditor under the agreement to avoid the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and take possession of, and liquidate, our collateral under our repurchase agreements without delay. Our risks associated with the insolvency or bankruptcy of a lender maybe more pronounced during periods of significant volatility in the market conditions for mortgages and mortgage-related assets as well as the broader financial markets.

An increase in our borrowing costs relative to the interest we receive on our MBS or our re-performing residential whole loans may materially adversely affect our profitability.

Our earnings are primarily generated from the difference between the interest income we earn on our investment portfolio, less net amortization of purchase premiums and discounts, and the interest expense we pay on our borrowings. We rely primarily on borrowings under repurchase agreements to finance the acquisition of residential mortgage investments, which have longer-term contractual maturities. Even though the majority of our investments have interest rates that adjust over time based on changes in corresponding interest rate indexes, the interest we pay on our borrowings may increase at a faster pace than the interest we earn on our investments. In general, if the interest expense on our borrowings increases relative to the interest income we earn on our investments, our profitability may be materially adversely affected, including due to the following reasons:

•

Changes in interest rates, cyclical or otherwise, may materially adversely affect our profitability. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including fiscal and monetary policies and domestic and international economic and political conditions, as well as other factors beyond our control. In general, we finance the acquisition of our investments through borrowings in the form of repurchase transactions, which exposes us to interest rate risk on the financed assets. The cost of our borrowings is based on prevailing market interest rates. Because the terms of our repurchase transactions typically range from one to six months at inception, the interest rates on our borrowings generally adjust more frequently (as new repurchase transactions are entered into upon the maturity of existing repurchase transactions) than the interest rates on our investments. During a period of rising interest rates, our borrowing costs generally will increase at a faster pace than our interest earnings on the leveraged portion of our investment portfolio, which could result in a decline in our net interest spread and net interest margin. The severity of any such decline would depend on our asset/liability composition, including the impact of hedging transactions, at the time as well as the magnitude and period over which interest rates increase. Further, an increase in short-term interest rates could also have a negative impact on the market value of our residential mortgage investments. If any of these events happen, we could experience a decrease in net income or incur a net loss during these periods, which may negatively impact our distributions to stockholders.

•

Interest rate caps on the mortgages collateralizing our MBS may materially adversely affect our profitability if short-term interest rates increase. The coupons earned on ARM-MBS adjust over time as interest rates change (typically after an initial fixed-rate period for Hybrids). The financial markets primarily determine the interest rates that we pay on the repurchase transactions used to finance the acquisition of our MBS; however, the level of adjustment to the interest rates earned on our ARM-MBS is typically limited by contract (or in certain cases by state or federal law). The interim and lifetime interest rate caps on the mortgages collateralizing our MBS limit the amount by which the interest rates on such assets can adjust. Interim interest rate caps limit the amount interest rates on a particular ARM can adjust during the next adjustment period. Lifetime interest rate caps limit the amount interest rates can adjust upward from inception through maturity of a particular ARM. Our repurchase transactions are not subject to similar restrictions. Accordingly, in a sustained period of rising interest rates or a period in which interest rates rise rapidly, we could experience a decrease in net income or a net loss because the interest rates paid by us on our borrowings (excluding the impact of hedging transactions) could increase without limitation (as new repurchase transactions are entered into upon the maturity of existing repurchase transactions) while increases in the interest rates earned on the mortgages collateralizing our MBS could be limited due to interim or lifetime interest rate caps.

•

Adjustments of interest rates on our borrowings may not be matched to interest rate indexes on our MBS. In general, the interest rates on our repurchase transactions are based on LIBOR, while the interest rates on our ARM-MBS may be indexed to LIBOR or CMT rate. Accordingly, any increase in LIBOR relative to one-year CMT rates will generally result in an increase in our borrowing costs that is not matched by a corresponding increase in the interest earned on our ARM-

Table of Contents

MBS tied to these other index rates. Any such interest rate index mismatch could adversely affect our profitability, which may negatively impact our distributions to stockholders.

•

A flat or inverted yield curve may adversely affect ARM-MBS prepayment rates and supply. Our net interest income varies primarily as a result of changes in interest rates as well as changes in interest rates across the yield curve. When the differential between short-term and long-term benchmark interest rates narrows, the yield curve is said to be “flattening.” In addition, a flatter yield curve generally leads to fixed-rate mortgage rates that are closer to the interest rates available on ARMs, potentially decreasing the supply of ARM-MBS. At times, short-term interest rates may increase and exceed long-term interest rates, causing an inverted yield curve. When the yield curve is inverted, fixed-rate mortgage rates may approach or be lower than mortgage rates on ARMs, further increasing ARM-MBS prepayments and further negatively impacting ARM-MBS supply. Increases in prepayments on our MBS portfolio cause our premium amortization to accelerate, lowering the yield on such assets. If this happens, we could experience a decrease in net income or incur a net loss during these periods, which may negatively impact our distributions to stockholders.

Certain of our current lenders require, and future lenders may require, us to enter into restrictive covenants relating to our operations.

The various agreements pursuant to which we borrow money to finance our residential mortgage investments generally include customary representations, warranties and covenants, but may also contain more restrictive supplemental terms and conditions. Although specific to each master repurchase or loan agreement, typical supplemental terms include requirements of minimum equity, leverage ratios and performance triggers relating to a decline in equity or net income over a period of time. If we fail to meet or satisfy any covenants, supplemental terms or representations and warranties, we could be in default under the affected agreements and those lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under the agreements to be immediately due and payable, enforce their respective interests against collateral pledged under such agreements and restrict our ability to make additional borrowings. Certain of our financing agreements contain cross-default or cross-acceleration provisions, so that if a default or acceleration of indebtedness occurs under any one agreement, the lenders under our other agreements could also declare a default. Further, under our agreements, we are typically required to pledge additional assets to our lenders in the event the estimated fair value of the existing pledged collateral under such agreements declines and such lenders demand additional collateral, which may take the form of additional securities, loans or cash.

Future lenders may impose similar or additional restrictions and other covenants on us. If we fail to meet or satisfy any of these covenants, we could be in default under these agreements, and our lenders could elect to declare outstanding amounts due and payable, require the posting of additional collateral and enforce their interests against then-existing collateral. We could also be subject to cross-default and acceleration rights and, with respect to collateralized debt, the posting of additional collateral and foreclosure rights upon default. Further, this could also make it difficult for us to satisfy the qualification requirements necessary to maintain our status as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Amendments to the Federal Home Loan Bank membership regulations that require us to terminate our membership with the FHLB could adversely affect our ability to finance our operations.

Our captive insurance subsidiary, MFA Insurance, is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines (or FHLB Des Moines) and, until January 2017, obtained advances from the FHLB Des Moines in the form of secured borrowings. On January 12, 2016, the FHFA amended its regulations governing FHLB membership. The amendments exclude captive insurers from the definition of “insurance company,” making MFA Insurance ineligible for FHLB membership, and, MFA Insurance’s membership with the FHLB Des Moines will terminate February 19, 2017. MFA Insurance is also required to repay all advances from the FHLB Des Moines by such date, and it did so in January 2017. During the period of its membership, MFA Insurance used its borrowing capacity with the FHLB Des Moines to obtain advances at competitive rates. There can be no assurance that we will be able to replace the borrowing capacity provided by the FHLB Des Moines on terms as favorable as those received from such institution, which could affect our ability to finance our assets and our results of operations.

Table of Contents

Risks Associated With Adverse Developments in the Mortgage Finance and Credit Markets and Financial Markets Generally

Market conditions for mortgages and mortgage-related assets as well as the broader financial markets may materially adversely affect the value of the assets in which we invest.

Our results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the markets for mortgages and mortgage-related assets, including MBS, as well as the broader financial markets and the economy generally. Significant adverse changes in financial market conditions leading to the forced sale of large quantities of mortgage-related and other financial assets, would result in significant volatility in the market for mortgages and mortgage-related assets and potentially significant losses for ourselves and certain other market participants. In addition, concerns over actual or anticipated low economic growth rates higher levels of unemployment or uncertainty regarding future U.S. monetary policy (particularly in light of the new presidential administration and related uncertainties) may contribute to increased interest rate volatility. Declines in the value of our investments, or perceived market uncertainty about their value, may make it difficult for us to obtain financing on favorable terms or at all, or maintain our compliance with terms of any financing arrangements already in place. Additionally, increased volatility and/or deterioration in the broader residential mortgage and MBS markets could materially adversely affect the performance and market value of our investments.

A lack of liquidity in our investments may materially adversely affect our business.

The assets that comprise our investment portfolio and that we acquire are not traded on an exchange. A portion of our investments are subject to legal and other restrictions on resale and are otherwise generally less liquid than exchange-traded securities. Any illiquidity of our investments may make it difficult for us to sell such investments if the need or desire arises. In addition, if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we have previously recorded our investments. Further, we may face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate an investment in a business entity to the extent that we have or could be attributed with material, non-public information regarding such business entity. 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.

Actions by the U.S. Government designed to stabilize or reform the financial markets may not achieve their intended effect or otherwise benefit our business, and could materially adversely affect our business.

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 imposes significant restrictions on the proprietary trading activities of certain banking entities and subjects other systemically significant entities and activities regulated by the U.S. Federal Reserve to increased capital requirements and quantitative limits for engaging in such activities. The Dodd-Frank Act also seeks to reform the asset-backed securitization market (including the MBS 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. The Dodd-Frank Act also imposes significant regulatory restrictions on the origination of residential mortgage loans. The Dodd-Frank Act’s extensive requirements, and implementation by regulatory agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (or CFTC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (or FDIC), Federal Reserve Board, and the SEC 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 MBS, both of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, the U.S. Government, U.S. Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury and other governmental and regulatory bodies have taken or are considering taking other actions to continue to address the fallout from the 2007-2008 financial and credit crisis domestically and internationally. International financial regulators are examining standard setting for systemically significant entities, such as those considered by the Third Basel Accords (Basel III) to be incorporated by domestic entities. 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.

Table of Contents

Deterioration in the condition of European banks and financial institutions could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In the years following the financial and credit crisis of 2007-2008, certain of our repurchase agreement counterparties in the United States and Europe experienced financial difficulty and were either rescued by government assistance or otherwise benefited from accommodative monetary policy of Central Banks. Several European governments implemented measures to attempt to shore up their financial sectors through loans, credit guarantees, capital infusions, promises of continued liquidity funding and interest rate cuts. Additionally, other governments of the world’s largest economic countries also implemented interest rate cuts. Although economic and credit conditions have stabilized in the past few years, there is no assurance that these and other plans and programs will be successful in the longer term, and, in particular, when governments and central banks begin to significantly unwind or otherwise reverse these programs and policies. If unsuccessful, this could materially adversely affect our financing and operations as well as those of the entire mortgage sector in general.

Several of our financing counterparties are European banks (or their U.S. based subsidiaries) that, have provided financing to us, particularly repurchase agreement financing for the acquisition of residential mortgage assets. If European banks and financial institutions experienced a deterioration in financial condition, there is the possibility that this would also negatively affect the operations of their U.S. banking subsidiaries. This risk could be more pronounced in light of Brexit. This could adversely affect our financing and operations as well as those of the entire mortgage sector in general.

Any downgrade, or perceived potential of a downgrade, of U.S. sovereign credit ratings or the credit ratings of the GSEs by the various credit rating agencies may materially adversely affect our the value of our Agency MBS and our business more generally.

During the summer of 2011, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (or S&P), one of the major credit rating agencies, downgraded the U.S. sovereign credit rating in response to the protracted debate over the “U.S. debt ceiling limit” and S&P’s perception of the U.S. Government’s ability to address its long-term budget deficit. At the same time, S&P also lowered the credit ratings of the GSEs in response to the downgrade in the U.S. sovereign credit rating, as the value of the Agency MBS issued by the GSEs and their ability to meet their obligations under such Agency MBS are largely determined by the support provided to them by the U.S. Government and market perceptions of the strength of such support and the likelihood of its continuity.

We could be adversely affected in a number of ways in the event of a default by the U.S. Government, a further downgrade by S&P or a downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating by another credit rating agency Such adverse effects could include higher financing costs and/or a reduction in the amount of financing provided based on the market value of collateral posted under our repurchase agreements and other financing arrangements. In addition, although the rating agencies have more recently determined that the GSEs’ outlook is generally stable, to the extent that the credit rating of any or all of the GSEs were to be downgraded in the future, the value of our Agency MBS could be adversely affected. These outcomes could in turn materially adversely affect our operations and financial condition in a number of ways, including a reduction in the net interest spread between our assets and associated repurchase agreement borrowings or a decrease in our ability to obtain repurchase agreement financing on acceptable terms, or at all.

Regulatory Risk and Risks Related to the Investment Company Act of 1940

Our business is subject to extensive regulation.

Our business is subject to extensive regulation by federal and state governmental authorities, self-regulatory organizations and securities exchanges. We are required to comply with numerous federal and state laws. The laws, rules and regulations comprising this regulatory framework change frequently, as can the interpretation and enforcement of existing laws, rules and regulations. Some of the laws, rules and regulations to which we are subject are intended primarily to safeguard and protect consumers, rather than stockholders or creditors. From time to time, we may receive requests from federal and state agencies for records, documents and information regarding our policies, procedures and practices regarding our business activities. We incur significant ongoing costs to comply with these government regulations.

Although we do not originate or directly service residential mortgage loans, we must comply with various federal and state laws, rules and regulations as a result of owning MBS and residential whole loans. These rules generally focus on consumer protection and include, among others, rules promulgated under the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (or Gramm-Leach-Bliley). These requirements can and do change as statutes and regulations are enacted, promulgated, amended and interpreted, and the recent trend among federal and state lawmakers and regulators has been toward increasing laws, regulations and investigative proceedings in relation to the mortgage industry generally. Although we believe that we have structured our operations and investments to comply with existing legal and regulatory requirements and

Table of Contents

interpretations, changes in regulatory and legal requirements, including changes in their interpretation and enforcement by lawmakers and regulators, could materially and adversely affect our business and our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Maintaining our exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act imposes significant limits on our operations.

We conduct our operations so that neither we nor any of our subsidiaries are required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of the issuer’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis (i.e., the 40% Test). Excluded from the term “investment securities” are, among other things, U.S. Government securities and securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries that are not themselves investment companies and are not relying on the exception from the definition of investment company for private funds set forth in Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act.

We are a holding company and conduct our real estate businesses primarily through wholly-owned subsidiaries. We conduct our real estate business so that we do not come within the definition of an investment company because less than 40% of the value of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis will consist of “investment securities.” The securities issued by any wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries that we may form in the future that are excepted from the definition of “investment company” based on Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, together with any other investment securities we may own, may not have a value in excess of 40% of the value of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis. We monitor our holdings to ensure continuing and ongoing compliance with this test. In addition, we believe we will not be considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act because we will not engage primarily or hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Rather, through our wholly-owned subsidiaries, we will be primarily engaged in the non-investment company businesses of these subsidiaries.

If the value of securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excepted from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, together with any other investment securities we own, exceeds 40% of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis, or if one or more of such subsidiaries fail to maintain an exception or exemption from the Investment Company Act, we could, among other things, be required either (a) to substantially change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (b) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so or (c) to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, any of which could have an adverse effect on us and the market price of our securities. If we were required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to our capital structure (including our ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the Investment Company Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, and other matters.

We expect that our subsidiaries that invest in residential mortgage loans (whether through a consolidated trust or otherwise) will rely upon the exemption from registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act, which is available for entities “primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” This exemption generally requires that at least 55% of each of these subsidiaries’ assets be comprised of qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of each of their portfolios be comprised of qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets under the Investment Company Act. Mortgage loans that were fully and exclusively secured by real property are generally qualifying real estate assets for purposes of the exemption. All or substantially all of our residential mortgage loans are fully and exclusively secured by real property with a loan-to-value ratio of less than 100%. As a result, we believe our residential mortgage loans that are fully and exclusively secured by real property meet the definition of qualifying real estate assets. To the extent we own any residential mortgage loans with a loan-to-value ratio of greater than 100%, we intend to classify, depending on guidance from the SEC staff, only the portion of the value of such loans that does not exceed the value of the real estate collateral as qualifying real estate assets and the excess as real estate-related assets.

In August 2011, the SEC issued a “concept release” pursuant to which they solicited public comments on a wide range of issues relating to companies engaged in the business of acquiring mortgages and mortgage-related instruments and that rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act. The concept release and the public comments thereto have not yet resulted in SEC rulemaking or interpretative guidance and we cannot predict what form any such rulemaking or interpretive guidance may take. There can be no assurance, however, that the laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of REITs,

Table of Contents

or guidance from the SEC or its staff regarding the exemption from registration as an investment company on which we rely, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. We expect each of our subsidiaries relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) to rely on guidance published by the SEC staff or on our analyses of guidance published with respect to other types of assets, if any, to determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets. To the extent that the SEC staff publishes new or different guidance with respect to these matters, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. In addition, we may be limited in our ability to make certain investments and these limitations could result in us holding assets we might wish to sell or selling assets we might wish to hold.

Certain of our subsidiaries may rely on the exemption provided by Section 3(c)(6) to the extent that they hold residential mortgage loans through majority owned subsidiaries that rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C). The SEC staff has issued little interpretive guidance with respect to Section 3(c)(6) and any guidance published by the staff could require us to adjust our strategy accordingly.

To the extent that the SEC staff provides more specific guidance regarding any of the matters bearing upon the exceptions we and our subsidiaries rely on from registration under the Investment Company Act, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. Any additional guidance from the SEC staff could provide additional flexibility to us, or it could further inhibit our ability to pursue the strategies we have chosen.

There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of REITs, including the Division of Investment Management of the SEC providing more specific or different guidance regarding these exemptions, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations.

Risks Related to Our Use of Hedging Strategies

Our use of hedging strategies to mitigate our interest rate exposure may not be effective.

In accordance with our operating policies, we pursue various types of hedging strategies, including interest rate swap agreements (or Swaps), to seek to mitigate or reduce our exposure to losses from adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, the type of assets held and financing sources used and other changing market conditions. No hedging strategy, however, can completely insulate us from the interest rate risks to which we are exposed and there is no guarantee that the implementation of any hedging strategy would have the desired impact on our results of operations or financial condition. Certain of the U.S. federal income tax requirements that we must satisfy in order to qualify as a REIT may limit our ability to hedge against such risks. We will not enter into derivative transactions if we believe that they will jeopardize our qualification as a REIT.

Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:


•	interest rate hedging can be expensive, particularly during periods of rising and volatile interest rates;


•	available interest rate hedges may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk for which protection is sought;


•	the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related liability;


•	the credit quality of the party owing money on the hedge may be downgraded to such an extent that it impairs our ability to sell or assign our side of the hedging transaction; and


•	the party owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay.

We primarily use Swaps to hedge against future increases in interest rates on our repurchase agreements. Should a Swap counterparty be unable to make required payments pursuant to such Swap, the hedged liability would cease to be hedged for the remaining term of the Swap. In addition, we may be at risk for any collateral held by a hedging counterparty to a Swap, should such counterparty become insolvent or file for bankruptcy. Our hedging transactions, which are intended to limit losses, may actually adversely affect our earnings, which could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We may enter into hedging instruments that could expose us to contingent liabilities in the future, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, part of our financing strategy involves entering into hedging instruments that could require us to fund cash payments in certain circumstances (e.g., the early termination of a hedging instrument caused by an event of default or other voluntary or involuntary termination event or the decision by a hedging counterparty to request the

Table of Contents

posting of collateral that it is contractually owed under the terms of a hedging instrument). With respect to the termination of an existing Swap, the amount due would generally be equal to the unrealized loss of the open Swap position with the hedging counterparty and could also include other fees and charges. These economic losses will be reflected in our financial results of operations and our ability to fund these obligations will depend on the liquidity of our assets and access to capital at the time. Any losses we incur on our hedging instruments could materially adversely affect our earnings and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

The characteristics of hedging instruments present various concerns, including illiquidity, enforceability, and counterparty risks, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

As indicated above, from time to time we enter into Swaps. Entities entering into Swaps are exposed to credit losses in the event of non-performance by counterparties to these transactions. The CFTC issued new rules that became effective in October 2012 regarding 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 Swap transactions between counterparties, they do require that the clearing of all Swap transactions through registered derivatives clearing organizations, or swap execution facilities, through standardized documents under which each Swap counterparty transfers its position to another entity whereby 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 June 2013, we are not required to clear them through the central clearinghouse and these Swaps are still subject to the risks of non-performance by any of the individual counterparties with whom we entered into these transactions. If the Swap counterparty cannot perform under the terms of a Swap, we would not receive payments due under that agreement, we may lose any unrealized gain associated with the Swap, and the hedged liability would cease to be hedged by the Swap. We may also be at risk for any collateral we have pledged to secure our obligation under the Swap if the counterparty becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in a loss and force us to cover our commitments, if any, at the then-current market price. Although generally we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging positions, it may not always be possible to dispose of or close out a hedging position without the consent of the hedging counterparty and we may not be able to enter into an offsetting contract in order to cover our risk. We cannot assure you that there will always be a liquid secondary market that will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold and we may be required to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in losses.

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

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

We may fail to qualify for hedge accounting treatment, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

We record derivative and hedge transactions in accordance with GAAP, specifically according to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (or FASB) Accounting Standards Codification Topic on Derivatives. Under these standards, we may fail to qualify for hedge accounting treatment for a number of reasons, including if we use instruments that do not meet the definition of a derivative, we fail to satisfy hedge documentation and hedge effectiveness assessment requirements or our instruments are not highly effective. If we fail to qualify for hedge accounting treatment, though the fundamental economic performance of our business would be unaffected, our operating results for financial reporting purposes may be materially adversely affected because losses on the derivatives we enter into would be recorded in net income, rather than AOCI, a component of stockholders’ equity.

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT and the Taxation of Our Assets

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

We have elected to qualify as a REIT and intend to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (or the Code) related to REIT qualification. Accordingly, we will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax to the extent we distribute 100% of our REIT taxable income (which is generally our taxable income, computed without regard to the dividends paid deduction, any net income from prohibited transactions, and any net income from foreclosure property) to stockholders within the timeframe permitted under the Code and provided that we comply with certain income, asset ownership and other tests applicable to REITs. We believe that we currently meet all of the REIT requirements and intend to continue to qualify as a REIT under the provisions of the Code. Many of the REIT requirements however are highly technical and complex. The determination of whether we are a REIT requires an analysis of various factual matters and circumstances, some of which may not be totally within our control and some of which involve interpretation. For example, if we are to qualify as a REIT, annually at least 75% of our gross income must come from, among other sources, interest on obligations secured by mortgages on real property or interests in real property, gain from the disposition of real property, including mortgages or interests in real property (other than sales or dispositions of real property, including mortgages on real property, or securities that are treated as mortgages on real property, that we hold primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business (i.e., prohibited transactions)), dividends or other distributions on, and gains from the disposition of shares in other REITs, commitment fees received for agreements to make real estate loans and certain temporary investment income. In addition, the composition of our assets must meet certain requirements at the close of each quarter. There can be no assurance that we will be able to satisfy these or other requirements or that the Internal Revenue Service (or IRS) or a court would agree with any conclusions or positions we have taken in interpreting the REIT requirements.

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

We may lose our REIT status if the IRS successfully challenges our characterization of our income from foreign TRSs.

We have elected to treat a Cayman Islands company as a TRS. We will likely be required to include in our income, even without the receipt of actual distributions, earnings from our investment in the foreign TRS. Income inclusions from equity investments in foreign corporations are technically neither actual dividends nor any of the other enumerated categories of qualifying income for the 95% gross income test. However, the IRS, based on discretionary authority granted to it under the Code, has issued private letter rulings to other REITs holding that income inclusions from equity investments in foreign corporations would be treated as qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test. Private letter rulings may be relied upon only by the taxpayers to whom they are issued and the IRS may revoke a private letter ruling. Based on those private letter rulings and advice of counsel, we generally intend to treat such income inclusions as qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test. Nevertheless, no assurance can be provided that the IRS would not successfully challenge our treatment of such income as qualifying income. In the event that such income was determined not to qualify for the 95% gross income test, we could be subject to a penalty tax with respect to such income to the extent it exceeds 5% of our gross income or we could fail to continue to qualify as a REIT.

Table of Contents

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

To maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gain) to our stockholders within the timeframe permitted under the Code. We generally must make these distributions in the taxable year to which they relate, or in the following taxable year if declared before we timely (including extensions) file our tax return for the year and if paid with or before the first regular dividend payment after such declaration. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our undistributed taxable income at regular corporate income tax rates. In addition, if we should fail to distribute during each calendar year at least the sum of (a) 85% of our REIT ordinary income for such year, (b) 95% of our REIT capital gain net income for such year, and (c) any undistributed taxable income from prior periods, we would be subject to a non-deductible 4% excise tax on the excess of such required distribution over the sum of (x) the amounts actually distributed, plus (y) the amounts of income we retained and on which we have paid corporate income tax.

The dividend distribution requirement limits the amount of cash we have available for other business purposes, including amounts to fund our growth. Also, it is possible that because of differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash, we may have to borrow funds on unfavorable terms, sell investments at disadvantageous prices or distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions to make distributions sufficient to maintain our qualification as a REIT or avoid corporate income tax and the 4% excise tax in a particular year. These alternatives could increase our costs or reduce our stockholders’ equity. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to grow, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

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

Even if we qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we may be required to pay certain U.S. federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, tax on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, excise taxes, state or local income, property and transfer taxes, such as mortgage recording taxes, and other taxes. In addition, in order to meet the REIT qualification requirements, prevent the recognition of certain types of non-cash income, or to avert the imposition of a 100% tax that applies to certain gains derived by a REIT from dealer property or inventory (i.e., prohibited transactions tax) we may hold some of our assets through TRSs or other subsidiary corporations that will be subject to corporate level income tax at regular rates. In addition, if we lend money to a TRS, the TRS may be unable to deduct all or a portion of the interest paid to us, which could result in an even higher corporate level tax liability. Any of these taxes would reduce our operating cash flow and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

If our foreign TRS is subject to U.S. federal income tax at the entity level, it would greatly reduce the amounts those entities would have available to pay its creditors and distribute to us.

There is a specific exemption from regular U.S. federal income tax for non-U.S. corporations that restrict their activities in the United States to trading stock and securities (or any activity closely related thereto) for their own account, whether such trading (or such other activity) is conducted by the corporation or its employees through a resident broker, commission agent, custodian or other agent. We intend that our foreign TRS will rely on that exemption or otherwise operate in a manner so that it will not be subject to regular U.S. federal income tax on its net income at the entity level. If the IRS succeeded in challenging that tax treatment, it would greatly reduce the amount that the foreign TRS would have available to pay to its creditors and to distribute to us. In addition, even if our foreign TRS qualifies for that exemption, it may nevertheless be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax on certain types of income.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forgo otherwise attractive opportunities.

To remain qualified as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts that we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. We may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution, and may be unable to pursue investments that would be otherwise advantageous to us in order to satisfy the source-of-income or asset-diversification requirements for qualifying as a REIT. In addition, in certain cases, the modification of a debt instrument could result in the conversion of the instrument from a qualifying real estate asset to a wholly or partially non-qualifying asset that must be contributed to a TRS or disposed of in order for us to qualify or maintain our qualification as a REIT. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to make and, in certain cases, to maintain ownership of, certain attractive investments.

Table of Contents

Our ownership of and relationship with any TRS which we may form or acquire will be limited, and a failure to comply with the limits would jeopardize our REIT status and may result in the application of a 100% excise tax.

A REIT may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more TRSs. A TRS may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned directly by the parent REIT. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. A corporation (other than a REIT) of which a TRS directly or indirectly owns more than 35% of the voting power or value of the stock will automatically be treated as a TRS. Overall, no more than 25% of the value of a REIT's total assets (or 20% beginning in calendar year 2018) may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRSs. A domestic TRS will pay federal, state and local income tax at regular corporate rates on any income that it earns. In addition, the TRS rules limit the deductibility of interest paid or accrued by a TRS to its parent REIT to assure that the TRS is subject to an appropriate level of corporate taxation. The rules also impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm's-length basis. Any domestic TRS that we may form will pay federal, state and local income tax on its taxable income, and its after-tax net income will be available for distribution to us but is not required to be distributed to us unless necessary to maintain our REIT qualification.

We may generate taxable income that differs from our GAAP income on our Non-Agency MBS and residential whole loan investments purchased at a discount to par value, which may result in significant timing variances in the recognition of income and losses.

We have acquired and intend to continue to acquire Non-Agency MBS and residential whole loans at prices that reflect significant market discounts on their unpaid principal balances. For financial statement reporting purposes, we generally establish a portion of the purchase discount on Non-Agency MBS as a Credit Reserve. This Credit Reserve is generally not accreted into income for financial statement reporting purposes. For tax purposes, however, we are not permitted to anticipate, or establish a reserve for, credit losses prior to their occurrence. As a result, discount on securities acquired in the primary or secondary market is included in the determination of taxable income and is not impacted by losses until such losses are incurred. Such differences in accounting for tax and GAAP can lead to significant timing variances in the recognition of income and losses. Taxable income on Non-Agency MBS purchased at a discount to their par value may be higher than GAAP earnings in early periods (before losses are actually incurred) and lower than GAAP earnings in periods during and subsequent to when realized credit losses are incurred. Dividends will be declared and paid at the discretion of our Board and will depend on REIT taxable earnings, our financial results and overall financial condition, maintenance of our REIT qualification and such other factors as our Board may deem relevant from time to time.

The tax on prohibited transactions may limit our ability to engage in transactions, including certain methods of securitizing mortgage loans, that would be treated as sales for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

A REIT’s net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property, other than foreclosure property, but including mortgage loans, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to this tax if we were to dispose of or securitize loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the loans for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Therefore, to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose to engage in certain sales of loans through a TRS and not at the REIT level, and we may be limited as to the structures we are able to utilize for our securitization transactions, even though the sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us.

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

Securitizations by us or our subsidiaries could result in the creation of taxable mortgage pools for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The real estate mortgage investment conduit (or REMIC) provisions of the Code generally provide that REMICs are the only form of pass-through entity permitted to issue debt obligations with two or more maturities if the payments on those obligations bear a relationship to the mortgage obligations held by such entity. If we engage in a non-REMIC securitization transaction, directly or indirectly through a QRS, in which the assets held by the securitization vehicle consist largely of mortgage loans or MBS, in which the securitization vehicle issues to investors two or more classes of debt instruments that have different maturities, and in which the timing and amount of payments on the debt instruments is determined in large part by the amounts received on the mortgage loans or MBS held by the securitization vehicle, the securitization vehicle will be a taxable mortgage pool. As long as we or another REIT hold a 100% interest in the equity interests in a taxable mortgage pool, either directly, or through a QRS, the taxable mortgage pool will not be subject to tax. A portion of the income that we realize with respect to the equity interest we hold in a taxable mortgage pool will, however, be considered to be excess inclusion income and, as a result, a portion of the dividends that we pay to our stockholders will be considered to consist of excess inclusion income. Such excess inclusion income is treated as unrelated business taxable income (or UBTI) for tax-exempt stockholders, is subject to withholding for foreign stockholders (without the benefit of any treaty reduction), and is not subject to reduction by net operating loss carryovers.

Table of Contents

In addition to the extent that our stock is owned by tax-exempt “disqualified organizations,” such as certain government-related entities and charitable remainder trusts that are not subject to tax on unrelated business income, we may incur a corporate level tax on a portion of our income from the taxable mortgage pool. In that case, we may reduce the amount of our distributions to any disqualified organization whose stock ownership gave rise to the tax. Historically, we have not generated excess inclusion income; however, despite our efforts, we may not be able to avoid creating or distributing excess inclusion income to our stockholders in the future. In addition, we could face limitations in selling equity interests to outside investors in securitization transactions that are taxable mortgage pools or selling any debt securities issued in connection with these securitizations that might be considered to be equity interests for tax purposes. These limitations may prevent us from using certain techniques to maximize our returns from securitization transactions.

We have not established a minimum dividend payment level, and there is no guarantee that we will maintain current dividend payment levels or pay dividends in the future.

In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must comply with a number of requirements under U.S. federal tax law, including that we distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income within the timeframe permitted under the Code, which is calculated generally before the dividends paid deduction and excluding net capital gain. Dividends will be declared and paid at the discretion of our Board and will depend on our REIT taxable earnings, our financial results and overall condition, maintenance of our REIT qualification and such other factors as our Board may deem relevant from time to time. We have not established a minimum dividend payment level for our common stock and our ability to pay dividends may be negatively impacted by adverse changes in our operating results. Therefore, our dividend payment level may fluctuate significantly, and, under some circumstances, we may not pay dividends at all.

Our reported GAAP net income may differ from the amount of REIT taxable income and dividend distribution requirements and, therefore, our GAAP results may not be an accurate indicator of future taxable income and dividend distributions.

Generally, the cumulative net income we report over the life of an asset will be the same for GAAP and tax purposes, although the timing of this income recognition over the life of the asset could be materially different. Differences exist in the accounting for GAAP net income and REIT taxable income which can lead to significant variances in the amount and timing of when income and losses are recognized under these two measures. Due to these differences, our reported GAAP financial results could materially differ from our determination of REIT taxable income and our dividend distribution requirements, and, therefore, our GAAP results may not be an accurate indicator of future taxable income and dividend distributions.

Over time, accounting principles, conventions, rules, and interpretations may change, which could affect our reported GAAP and taxable earnings, and stockholders’ equity.

Accounting rules for the various aspects of our business change from time to time. Changes in GAAP, or the accepted interpretation of these accounting principles, can affect our reported income, earnings, and stockholders’ equity. In addition, changes in tax accounting rules or the interpretations thereof could affect our REIT taxable income and our dividend distribution requirements. These changes may materially adversely affect our results of operations.

The failure of assets subject to repurchase agreements to qualify as real estate assets could adversely affect our ability to remain qualified as a REIT.

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

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

The REIT provisions of the Code could substantially limit our ability to hedge our liabilities. Any income from a properly designated hedging transaction we enter into to manage risk of interest rate changes with respect to borrowings made or to be made, or ordinary obligations incurred or to be incurred, to acquire or carry real estate assets, or from certain other limited types of hedging transactions, generally does not constitute “gross income” for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests. To the extent that we enter into other types of hedging transactions, the income from those transactions is likely to be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both of the gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may have to limit our use of

Table of Contents

advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a TRS. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities because a TRS would be subject to tax on gains or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear. In addition, losses in a TRS will generally not provide any tax benefit, except for being carried forward against future taxable income in the TRS.

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

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

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

In addition, we may acquire debt instruments that are subsequently modified by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding instrument are “significant modifications” under the applicable Treasury regulations, the modified instrument will be considered to have been reissued to us in a debt-for-debt exchange with the borrower. In that event, we may be required to recognize taxable gain to the extent the principal amount of the modified instrument exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified instrument, even if the value of the instrument or the payment expectations have not changed. Following such a taxable modification, we would hold the modified loan with a cost basis equal to its principal amount for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Finally, in the event that any debt instruments acquired by us are delinquent as to mandatory principal and interest payments, or in the event payments with respect to a particular instrument are not made when due, we may nonetheless be required to continue to recognize the unpaid interest as taxable income as it accrues, despite doubt as to its ultimate collectability. Similarly, we may be required to accrue interest income with respect to debt instruments at its stated rate regardless of whether corresponding cash payments are received or are ultimately collectible. In each case, while we would in general ultimately have an offsetting loss deduction available to us when such interest was determined to be uncollectible, the utility of that deduction could depend on our having taxable income in that later year or thereafter.

For these and other reasons, we may have difficulty making distributions sufficient to maintain our qualification as a REIT or avoid corporate income tax and the 4% excise tax in a particular year.

Dividends paid by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates.

The maximum regular U.S. federal income tax rate for dividends paid to domestic stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates is currently 20%. Dividends paid by REITs, however, are generally not eligible for the reduced rates. Although this legislation does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, the more favorable rates 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 stock of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our common stock.

We may enter into resecuritization transactions, the tax treatment of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

We have engaged in and may in the future, engage in resecuritization transactions in which we transfer Non-Agency MBS to a special purpose entity that has formed or will form a securitization vehicle that will issue multiple classes of securities secured by and payable from cash flows on the underlying Non-Agency MBS. To date, we have structured two such transactions as a REMIC securitizations, which, to the extent we have transferred securities in a resecuritization, is viewed as the sale of securities for tax purposes. Although such transactions are treated as sales for tax purposes, they have historically not given rise to any taxable gain so that the prohibited transactions tax rules have not been implicated (i.e., the tax only applies to net taxable gain from sales that are prohibited transactions); however, no assurance can be offered that the IRS will agree with such treatment. In addition, to these REMIC securitization transactions, we have also engaged in two resecuritization transactions that we believe

Table of Contents

should be treated as financing transactions for tax purposes. If a securitization transaction were to be considered to be a sale of property to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business, and we recognized a gain on such transaction for tax purposes, then we could risk exposure to the 100% tax on net taxable income from prohibited transactions. Moreover, even if we retained MBS resulting from a resecuritization transaction and then subsequently sold such securities at a tax gain, the gain could, absent an available safe-harbor provision, be characterized as net income from a prohibited transaction. Under these circumstances, our results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

New legislation or administrative or judicial action, in each instance potentially with retroactive effect, could make it more difficult or impossible for us to remain qualified as a REIT.

The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of REITs may be modified, possibly with retroactive effect, by legislative, judicial or administrative action at any time, which could affect the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in us. Revisions in U.S. federal tax laws and interpretations thereof could affect or cause us to change our investments and commitments and affect the tax considerations of an investment in us.

In addition, according to publicly released statements, a top legislative priority of the Trump administration and of the current Congress may be significant reform of the Code, including significant changes to taxation of business entities. At present, both the timing and the details of any such tax reform and the impact of any potential tax reform on an investment in our Company are unclear. We cannot assure you that any such changes will not adversely affect the taxation of a stockholder.

Risks Related to Our Corporate Structure

Our ownership limitations may restrict business combination opportunities.

To qualify as a REIT under the Code, no more than 50% of the value of our outstanding shares of capital stock may be owned, directly or under applicable attribution rules, by five or fewer individuals (as defined by the Code to include certain entities) during the last half of each taxable year. To preserve our REIT qualification, among other things, our charter generally prohibits direct or indirect ownership by any person of more than 9.8% of the number or value of the outstanding shares of our capital stock. Generally, shares owned by affiliated owners will be aggregated for purposes of the ownership limit. Any transfer of shares of our capital stock or other event that, if effective, would violate the ownership limit will be void as to that number of shares of capital stock in excess of the ownership limit and the intended transferee will acquire no rights in such shares. Shares issued or transferred that would cause any stockholder to own more than the ownership limit or cause us to become “closely held” under Section 856(h) of the Code will automatically be converted into an equal number of shares of excess stock. All excess stock will be automatically transferred, without action by the prohibited owner, to a trust for the exclusive benefit of one or more charitable beneficiaries that we select, and the prohibited owner will not acquire any rights in the shares of excess stock. The restrictions on ownership and transfer contained in our charter could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control or other transaction in which holders of shares of common stock might receive a premium for their shares of common stock over the then current market price or that such holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests. The ownership limit provisions also may make our shares of common stock an unsuitable investment vehicle for any person seeking to obtain, either alone or with others as a group, ownership of more than 9.8% of the number or value of our outstanding shares of capital stock.

Provisions of Maryland law and other provisions of our organizational documents may limit the ability of a third party to acquire control of the Company.

Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law (or MGCL) may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change in control of our company that might involve a premium price for holders of our common stock or otherwise be in their best interests, including:

•

“business combination” provisions that, subject to limitations, prohibit certain business combinations between us and an “interested stockholder” (defined generally as any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of our outstanding voting stock or an affiliate or associate of ours who, at any time within the two-year period immediately prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the voting power of our then outstanding stock) or an affiliate of an interested stockholder for five years after the most recent date on which the stockholder becomes an interested stockholder, and thereafter impose two supermajority stockholder voting requirements to approve these combinations (unless our common stockholders receive a minimum price, as defined under Maryland law, for their shares in the form of cash or other consideration in the same form as previously paid by the interested stockholder for its shares); and

Table of Contents

•

“control share” provisions that provide that holders of “control shares” of our company (defined as voting shares of stock which, when aggregated with all other shares controlled by the acquiring stockholder, entitle the stockholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a “control share acquisition” (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of ownership or control of “control shares”) have no voting rights except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding all interested shares.

Our bylaws provide that we are not subject to the “control share” provisions of the MGCL. However, our Board may elect to make the “control share” statute applicable to us at any time, and may do so without stockholder approval.

Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL permits our Board, without stockholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our charter or bylaws, to elect on behalf of our company to be subject to statutory provisions that may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change in control of our company that might involve a premium price for holders of our common stock or otherwise be in their best interest. Our Board may elect to opt in to any or all of the provisions of Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL without stockholder approval at any time. In addition, without our having elected to be subject to Subtitle 8, our charter and bylaws already (1) provide for a classified board, (2) require the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 80% of the votes entitled to be cast in the election of directors for the removal of any director from our Board, which removal will be allowed only for cause, (3) vest in our Board the exclusive power to fix the number of directorships and (4) require, unless called by our Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer or President or our Board, the written request of stockholders entitled to cast not less than a majority of all votes entitled to be cast at such a meeting to call a special meeting. These provisions may delay or prevent a change of control of our company.

Future offerings of debt securities, which would rank senior to our common stock upon 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, senior or subordinated notes and series or classes of preferred stock or common stock. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and shares of preferred stock, if any, and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings may dilute the holdings of our existing stockholders or reduce the market price of our common stock, or both. Preferred stock could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend payments or both that could limit our ability to make a dividend distribution to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, holders of our common stock bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting their stock holdings in us.

Our Board may approve the issuance of capital stock with terms that may discourage a third party from acquiring the Company.

Our charter permits our Board to issue shares of preferred stock, issuable in one or more classes or series. We may issue a class of preferred stock to individual investors in order to comply with the various REIT requirements or to finance our operations. Our charter further permits our Board to classify or reclassify any unissued shares of preferred or common stock and establish the preferences and rights (including, among others, voting, dividend and conversion rights) of any such shares of stock, which rights may be superior to those of shares of our common stock. Thus, our Board could authorize the issuance of shares of preferred or common stock with terms and conditions that could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of the outstanding shares of our common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then current market price of our common stock.

Future issuances or sales of shares could cause our share price to decline.

Sales of substantial numbers of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that such sales might occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. In addition, the sale of these shares could impair our ability to raise capital through a sale of additional equity securities. Other issuances of our common stock could have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock. In addition, future issuances of our common stock may be dilutive to existing stockholders.

Table of Contents

Other Business Risks

We are dependent on our executive officers and other key personnel for our success, the loss of any of whom may materially adversely affect our business.

Our success is dependent upon the efforts, experience, diligence, skill and network of business contacts of our executive officers and key personnel. The departure of any of our executive officers and/or key personnel could have a material adverse effect on our operations and performance.

We are dependent on information systems and their failure (including in connection with cyber attacks) could significantly disrupt our business.

Our business is highly dependent on our information and communications systems. Any failure or interruption of our systems or cyber-attacks or security breaches of our networks or systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities, which could have a material adverse effect on operating results, the market price of our common stock and other securities and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. In addition, we also face the risk of operational failure, termination or capacity constraints of any of the third parties with which we do business or that facilitate our business activities, including clearing agents or other financial intermediaries we use to facilitate our securities transactions.

Computer malware, viruses, and computer hacking and phishing and cyber attacks have become more prevalent in our industry and may occur on our systems in the future. We rely heavily on financial, accounting and other data processing systems. It is difficult to determine what, if any, negative impact may directly result from any specific interruption or cyber-attacks or security breaches of our networks or systems (or networks or systems of, among other third parties, our lenders) or any failure to maintain performance, reliability and security of our technical infrastructure. As a result, any such computer malware, viruses, and computer hacking and phishing attacks may negatively affect our operations.

We operate in a highly competitive market for investment opportunities and competition may limit our ability to acquire desirable investments, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

We operate in a highly competitive market for investment opportunities. Our profitability depends, in large part, on our ability to acquire MBS or other investments at favorable prices. In acquiring our investments, we compete with a variety of institutional investors, including other REITs, public and private funds, commercial and investment banks, commercial finance and insurance companies and other financial institutions. Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that are not available to us. Many of our competitors are not subject to the operating constraints associated with REIT compliance or maintenance of an exemption from the Investment Company Act similar to ours. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of investments and establish additional business relationships than us. Furthermore, government or regulatory action and competition for investment securities of the types and classes which we acquire may lead to the price of such assets increasing, which may further limit our ability to generate desired returns. We cannot assure you that the competitive pressures we face will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Also, as a result of this competition, desirable investments may be limited in the future and we may not be able to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities from time to time, as we can provide no assurance that we will be able to identify and make investments that are consistent with our investment objectives.

Table of Contents

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

Office Leases

We pay monthly rent pursuant to two operating leases. Our lease for our corporate headquarters in New York, New York extends through May 31, 2020. The lease provides for aggregate cash payments ranging over time of approximately $2.5 million per year, paid on a monthly basis, exclusive of escalation charges. In addition, as part of this lease agreement, we have provided the landlord a $785,000 irrevocable standby letter of credit fully collateralized by cash. The letter of credit may be drawn upon by the landlord in the event that we default under certain terms of the lease. In addition, we have a lease through December 31, 2021, for our off-site back-up facility located in Rockville Centre, New York, which provides for, among other things, lease payments totaling approximately $32,000, annually.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

There are no material legal proceedings to which we are a party or to which any of our assets are subject.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

Table of Contents

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information

Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, under the symbol “MFA.” On February 10, 2017, the last sales price for our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange was $8.06 per share. The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock during each calendar quarter for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:



	2016				2015
Quarter Ended	High		Low		High		Low
March 31	$	6.98	$	5.61	$	8.22	$	7.68
June 30	7.38		6.69		8.04		7.39
September 30	7.86		7.21		7.80		5.78
December 31	8.05		7.03		7.17		6.17

Holders

As of February 10, 2017, we had 584 registered holders of our common stock. Such information was obtained through our registrar and transfer agent, based on the results of a broker search.

Dividends

No dividends may be paid on our common stock unless full cumulative dividends have been paid on our preferred stock. We have paid full cumulative dividends on our preferred stock on a quarterly basis through December 31, 2016. We have historically declared cash dividends on our common stock on a quarterly basis. During 2016 and 2015, we declared total cash dividends to holders of our common stock of $297.0 million ($0.80 per share) and $296.4 million ($0.80 per share), respectively. In general, our common stock dividends have been characterized as ordinary income to our stockholders for income tax purposes. However, a portion of our common stock dividends may, from time to time, be characterized as capital gains or return of capital. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, a portion of our dividends were deemed to be capital gains. For the year ended December 31, 2014, our common stock dividends were characterized as ordinary income to stockholders. (For additional dividend information, see Notes 12(a) and 12(b) to the consolidated financial statements, included under Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.)

We elected to be taxed as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 1998 and, as such, anticipate distributing at least 90% of our REIT taxable income within the timeframe permitted by the Code. Although we may borrow funds to make distributions, cash for such distributions has generally been, and is expected to continue to be, largely generated from our results of our operations.

Table of Contents

We declared and paid the following dividends on our common stock during the years 2016 and 2015:



Year	Declaration Date	Record Date	Payment Date	Dividend per Share
2016	December 14, 2016	December 28, 2016	January 31, 2017	$	0.20	(1)
	September 15, 2016	September 28, 2016	October 31, 2016	0.20
	June 14, 2016	June 28, 2016	July 29, 2016	0.20
	March 11, 2016	March 28, 2016	April 29, 2016	0.20

2015	December 9, 2015	December 28, 2015	January 29, 2016	$	0.20
	September 17, 2015	September 29, 2015	October 30, 2015	0.20
	June 15, 2015	June 29, 2015	July 31, 2015	0.20
	March 13, 2015	March 27, 2015	April 30, 2015	0.20


(1)	At December 31, 2016, the Company had accrued dividends and dividend equivalents payable of $74.7 million related to the common stock dividend declared on December 14, 2016.

Dividends are declared and paid at the discretion of our Board and depend on our cash available for distribution, financial condition, ability to maintain our qualification as a REIT, and such other factors that our Board may deem relevant. We have not established a minimum payout level for our common stock. (See Part I, Item 1A., “Risk Factors” and Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, for information regarding the sources of funds used for dividends and for a discussion of factors, if any, which may adversely affect our ability to pay dividends.)

Purchases of Equity Securities

As previously disclosed, in August 2005, our Board authorized a stock repurchase program (or Repurchase Program), to repurchase up to 4.0 million shares of our outstanding common stock under the Repurchase Program. The Board reaffirmed such authorization in May 2010. In December 2013, our Board increased the number of shares authorized for repurchase to an aggregate of 10.0 million shares (under which approximately 6.6 million shares remain available for repurchase). Such authorization does not have an expiration date and, at present, there is no intention to modify or otherwise rescind such authorization. Subject to applicable securities laws, repurchases of common stock under the Repurchase Program are made at times and in amounts as we deem appropriate (including, in our discretion, through the use of one or more plans adopted under Rule 10b5-1 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (or 1934 Act)), using available cash resources. Shares of common stock repurchased by us under the Repurchase Program are cancelled and, until reissued by us, are deemed to be authorized but unissued shares of our common stock. The Repurchase Program may be suspended or discontinued by us at any time and without prior notice.

We did not repurchase any shares of our common stock under the Repurchase Program during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.

Table of Contents

We engaged in no share repurchase activity during the fourth quarter of 2016 pursuant to the Repurchase program. We did, however, withhold restricted shares (under the terms of grants under our Equity Compensation Plan (or Equity Plan)) to offset tax withholding obligations that occur upon the vesting and release of restricted stock awards and/or restricted stock units (or RSUs). The following table presents information with respect to (i) such withheld restricted shares, and (ii) eligible shares remaining for repurchase under the Repurchase Program:



Month	Total Number of Shares Purchased	Weighted Average Price Paid Per Share (1)		Total Number of Shares Repurchased as Part of Publicly Announced Repurchase Program or Employee Plan	Maximum Number of Shares that May Yet be Purchased Under the Repurchase Program or Employee Plan
October 1-31, 2016:
Repurchase Program (2)	—	$	—	—	6,616,355
Employee Transactions (3)	—	—		N/A	N/A
November 1-30, 2016:
Repurchase Program (2)	—	—		—	6,616,355
Employee Transactions (3)	—	—		N/A	N/A
December 1-31, 2016:
Repurchase Program (2)	—	—		—	6,616,355
Employee Transactions (3)	270,095	7.67		N/A	N/A
Total Repurchase Program (2)	—	$	—	—	6,616,355
Total Employee Transactions (3)	270,095	$	7.67	N/A	N/A


(1)	Includes brokerage commissions.


(2)	As of December 31, 2016, we had repurchased an aggregate of 3,383,645 shares under the Repurchase Program.


(3)	Our Equity Plan provides that the value of the shares delivered or withheld be based on the price of our common stock on the date the relevant transaction occurs.

Discount Waiver, Direct Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan

In September 2003, we initiated a Discount Waiver, Direct Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan (or the DRSPP) to provide existing stockholders and new investors with a convenient and economical way to purchase shares of our common stock. Under the DRSPP, existing stockholders may elect to automatically reinvest all or a portion of their cash dividends in additional shares of our common stock and existing stockholders and new investors may make optional cash purchases of shares of our common stock in amounts ranging from $50 (or $1,000 for new investors) to $10,000 on a monthly basis and, with our prior approval, in excess of $10,000. At our discretion, we may issue shares of our common stock under the DRSPP at discounts of up to 5% from the prevailing market price at the time of purchase. Computershare Shareowner Services LLC is the administrator of the DRSPP (or the Plan Agent). Stockholders who own common stock that is registered in their own name and who want to participate in the DRSPP must deliver a completed enrollment form to the Plan Agent. Stockholders who own common stock that is registered in a name other than their own (e.g., broker, bank or other nominee) and who want to participate in the DRSPP must either request such nominee holder to participate on their behalf or request that such nominee holder re-register our common stock in the stockholder’s name and deliver a completed enrollment form to the Plan Agent. During the years ended 2016 and 2015, we issued 653,793 and 162,373 shares of common stock through the DRSPP generating net proceeds of approximately $4.7 million and $1.2 million, respectively.

Table of Contents

Securities Authorized For Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

During 2015, we adopted the Equity Plan, as approved by our stockholders. The Equity Plan amended and restated our 2010 Equity Compensation Plan. (For a description of the Equity Plan, see Note 14(a) to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.)

The following table presents certain information with respect to our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2016:



Award (1)	Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights	Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights		Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in the first column of this table)
RSUs	2,058,099
Total	2,058,099		(2)	8,162,746	(3)

(1) All equity based compensation is granted pursuant to plans that have been approved by our stockholders.

(2) A weighted average exercise price is not applicable for our RSUs, as such equity awards result in the issuance of shares of our common stock provided that such awards vest and, as such, do not have an exercise price. At December 31, 2016, 911,318 RSUs were vested, 576,781 RSUs were subject to time based vesting and 570,000 RSUs will vest subject to achieving a market condition.

(3) Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans excludes RSUs presented in the table and 28,968 shares of restricted stock, which were issued and outstanding at December 31, 2016.

Table of Contents

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

Our selected financial data set forth below is derived from our audited financial statements and should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes, included under Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



	At or/For the Year Ended December 31,
(Dollars in Thousands, Except per Share Amounts)	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012

Operating Data:
Interest Income	$	457,169		$	492,143		$	463,817		$	482,940		$	499,157
Interest expense	(193,355		)	(176,948		)	(159,808		)	(164,013		)	(171,670		)
Net impairment losses recognized in earnings (1)	(485		)	(705		)	—			—			(1,200		)
Net gain on residential whole loans held at fair value	59,684			17,722			116			—			—
Gain on sales of MBS and U.S. Treasury securities, net (2)	35,837			34,900			37,497			25,825			9,001
Unrealized net gains and net interest income from Linked Transactions	—			—			17,092			3,225			12,610
Other income/(loss), net	13,802			(1,457		)	80			(7,298		)	10
Operating and other expense	(59,984		)	(52,429		)	(45,290		)	(37,970		)	(41,069		)
Net income	$	312,668		$	313,226		$	313,504		$	302,709		$	306,839
Preferred stock dividends	15,000			15,000			15,000			13,750			8,160
Issuance costs of redeemed preferred stock (3)	—			—			—			3,947			—
Net income available to common stock and participating securities	$	297,668		$	298,226		$	298,504		$	285,012		$	298,679
Earnings per share — basic and diluted	$	0.80		$	0.80		$	0.81		$	0.78		$	0.83
Dividends declared per share of common stock (4)	$	0.80		$	0.80		$	0.80		$	1.64		$	0.88
Dividends declared per share of preferred stock (5)	$	1.875		$	1.875		$	1.875		$	2.136		$	2.125

Balance Sheet Data:
MBS and CRT securities	$	9,969,163		$	11,356,643		$	10,762,622		$	11,371,358		$	12,607,625
Residential whole loans, at carrying value	590,540			271,845			207,923			—			—
Residential whole loans, at fair value	814,682			623,276			143,472			—			—
Cash and cash equivalents	260,112			165,007			182,437			565,370			401,293
Linked Transactions	—			—			398,336			28,181			12,704
Total assets	12,484,022			13,162,551			12,354,242			12,469,379			13,509,494
Repurchase agreements and other advances	8,687,268			9,387,622			8,267,388			8,339,297			8,752,472
Securitized debt	—			21,868			110,072			363,676			638,760
Swaps (in a liability position)	46,954			70,526			62,198			28,217			63,034
Total liabilities	9,450,120			10,195,290			9,150,970			9,327,128			10,198,488
Preferred stock, liquidation preference	200,000			200,000			200,000			200,000			96,000
Total stockholders’ equity	3,033,902			2,967,261			3,203,272			3,142,251			3,311,006

Other Data:
Average total assets	$	12,836,580		$	13,669,055		$	12,542,584		$	13,192,285		$	12,942,171
Average total stockholders’ equity	$	2,965,570		$	3,129,461		$	3,230,932		$	3,262,458		$	2,945,687
Return on average total assets (6)	2.32		%	2.18		%	2.38		%	2.16		%	2.31		%
Return on average total stockholders’ equity (7)	10.54		%	10.01		%	9.70		%	9.28		%	10.42		%
Total average stockholders’ equity to total average assets (8)	23.10		%	22.89		%	25.75		%	24.73		%	22.76		%
Dividend payout ratio (9)	1.00			1.00			0.99			1.10			1.06
Book value per share of common stock (10)	$	7.62		$	7.47		$	8.12		$	8.06		$	8.99

Table of Contents


(1)	Reflects OTTI recognized through earnings related to Non-Agency MBS.

(2)

2016: We sold Non-Agency MBS for $85.6 million, realizing gross gains of $35.8 million. 2015: We sold Non-Agency MBS for $70.7 million, realizing gross gains of $34.9 million. 2014: We sold Non-Agency MBS for $123.9 million, realizing gross gains of $37.5 million. 2013: We sold Non-Agency MBS for $152.6 million, realizing gross gains of $25.8 million and sold U.S. Treasury securities for $422.2 million, realizing net losses of approximately $24,000. 2012: We sold Agency MBS for $168.9 million, realizing gross gains of $9.0 million.


(3)	Issuance costs of redeemed preferred stock represent the original offering costs related to the 8.50% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (“Series A Preferred Stock”), which was redeemed on May 16, 2013.


(4)	2013: Includes special cash dividends paid totaling $0.78 per share.


(5)	2013: Reflects dividends declared per share on Series A Preferred Stock and 7.50% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (“Series B Preferred Stock”) of $0.80 and $1.33, respectively.


(6)	Reflects net income available to common stock and participating securities divided by average total assets.


(7)	Reflects net income divided by average total stockholders’ equity.

(8) Reflects total average stockholders’ equity divided by total average assets.

(9) Reflects dividends declared per share of common stock (excluding special dividends) divided by earnings per share.

(10) Reflects total stockholders’ equity less the preferred stock liquidation preference divided by total shares of common stock outstanding.

Table of Contents

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and accompanying notes included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

GENERAL

We are a REIT primarily engaged in the business of investing, on a leveraged basis, in residential mortgage assets, including Agency MBS, Non-Agency MBS, residential whole loans and CRT securities. Our principal business objective is to deliver shareholder value through the generation of distributable income and through asset performance linked to residential mortgage credit fundamentals. We selectively invest in residential mortgage assets with a focus on credit analysis, projected prepayment rates, interest rate sensitivity and expected return.

At December 31, 2016, we had total assets of approximately $12.5 billion, of which $9.6 billion, or 76.6%, represented our MBS portfolio. At such date, our MBS portfolio was comprised of $3.7 billion of Agency MBS and $5.8 billion of Non-Agency MBS which includes $3.2 billion of Legacy Non-Agency MBS and $2.7 billion of MBS that are primarily structured with a contractual coupon step-up feature where the coupon increases up to 300 basis points at 36 months from issuance or sooner (or 3 Year Step-up securities). These 3 Year Step-up securities are primarily backed by securitized re-performing and non-performing loans. In addition, at December 31, 2016, we had approximately $1.4 billion in residential whole loans acquired through our consolidated trusts, which represented approximately 11.3% of our total assets. Our remaining investment-related assets were primarily comprised of collateral obtained in connection with reverse repurchase agreements, cash and cash equivalents (including restricted cash), CRT securities, REO, MBS-related receivables, and derivative instruments.

With respect to our business operations, increases in interest rates, in general, may over time cause: (i) the interest expense associated with our borrowings to increase; (ii) the value of our MBS portfolio and, correspondingly, our stockholders’ equity to decline; (iii) coupons on our ARM-MBS to reset, on a delayed basis, to higher interest rates; (iv) prepayments on our MBS to decline, thereby slowing the amortization of our MBS purchase premiums and the accretion of our purchase discounts; and (v) the value of our derivative hedging instruments and, correspondingly, our stockholders’ equity to increase. Conversely, decreases in interest rates, in general, may over time cause: (i) the interest expense associated with our borrowings to decrease; (ii) the value of our MBS portfolio and, correspondingly, our stockholders’ equity to increase; (iii) coupons on our ARM-MBS to reset, on a delayed basis, to lower interest rates; (iv) prepayments on our MBS to increase, thereby accelerating the amortization of our MBS purchase premiums and the accretion of our purchase discounts; and (v) the value of our derivative hedging instruments and, correspondingly, our stockholders’ equity to decrease. In addition, our borrowing costs and credit lines are further affected by the type of collateral we pledge and general conditions in the credit market.

Our investments in residential mortgage assets expose us to credit risk, generally meaning that we are subject to credit losses due to the risk of delinquency, default and foreclosure on the underlying real estate collateral. (See Part I, Item 1A., “Risk Factors - Credit and Other Risks Related to our Investments”, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.) We believe the discounted purchase prices paid on certain of these investments mitigate our risk of loss in the event that, as we expect on most such investments, we receive less than 100% of the par value of these investments. Our investment process for credit sensitive assets focuses primarily on quantifying and pricing credit risk.

Table of Contents

The table below presents the composition of our MBS portfolios with respect to repricing characteristics as of December 31, 2016:



	December 31, 2016
Underlying Mortgages	Agency MBS Fair Value (1)		Non-Agency MBS Fair Value (2)		Total MBS (1)(2)		Percent of Total
(In Thousands)
Hybrids in contractual fixed-rate period	$	918,371	$	138,583	$	1,056,954	15.3	%
Hybrids in adjustable period	1,323,356		1,954,578		3,277,934		47.5
15-year fixed rate	1,439,461		5,856		1,445,317		20.9
Greater than 15-year fixed rate	—		1,032,276		1,032,276		14.9
Floaters	54,705		39,832		94,537		1.4
Total	$	3,735,893	$	3,171,125	$	6,907,018	100.0	%

(1) Does not include principal payments receivable in the amount of $2.6 million.

(2) Does not reflect $2.7 billion of 3 Year Step-up securities, which are securitized financial instruments primarily backed by both fixed rate and hybrid re-performing and non-performing loans. These deal structures contain a step-up feature where the coupon increases up to 300 basis points at 36 months from issuance or sooner.

As of December 31, 2016, approximately $3.5 billion, or 51.2%, of our MBS portfolio was in its contractual fixed-rate period or were fixed-rate MBS and approximately $3.4 billion, or 48.8%, was in its contractual adjustable-rate period, or were floating rate MBS with interest rates that reset monthly. Our ARM-MBS in their contractual adjustable-rate period primarily include MBS collateralized by Hybrids for which the initial fixed-rate period has elapsed, such that the interest rate will typically adjust on an annual or semiannual basis.

Premiums arise when we acquire MBS at a price in excess of the principal balance of the mortgages securing such MBS (i.e., par value). Conversely, discounts arise when we acquire MBS at a price below the principal balance of the mortgages securing such MBS or acquire residential whole loans at a price below the principal balance of the mortgage. Premiums paid on our MBS are amortized against interest income and accretable purchase discounts on these investments are accreted to interest income. Purchase premiums, which are primarily carried on our Agency MBS and certain CRT securities, are amortized against interest income over the life of each security using the effective yield method, adjusted for actual prepayment activity. An increase in the prepayment rate, as measured by the CPR, will typically accelerate the amortization of purchase premiums, thereby reducing the internal rate of return (or IRR)/interest income earned on such assets.

CPR levels are impacted by, among other things, conditions in the housing market, new regulations, government and private sector initiatives, interest rates, availability of credit to home borrowers, underwriting standards and the economy in general. In particular, CPR reflects the conditional repayment rate (or CRR), which measures voluntary prepayments of mortgages collateralizing a particular MBS, and the conditional default rate (or CDR), which measures involuntary prepayments resulting from defaults. CPRs on Agency MBS and Legacy Non-Agency MBS may differ significantly. For the year ended December 31, 2016, our Agency MBS portfolio experienced a weighted average CPR of 14.4%, and our Legacy Non-Agency MBS portfolio experienced a weighted average CPR of 15.6%. For the year ended December 31, 2015, our Agency MBS portfolio experienced a weighted average CPR of 13.2%, and our Legacy Non-Agency MBS portfolio experienced a weighted average CPR of 14.1%. Over the last consecutive eight quarters, ending with December 31, 2016, the monthly weighted average CPR on our Agency and Legacy Non-Agency MBS portfolios ranged from a high of 17.0% experienced during the month ended September 30, 2016 to a low of 10.4%, experienced during the month ended March 31, 2015, with an average CPR over such quarters of 14.2%.

Our method of accounting for Non-Agency MBS purchased at significant discounts to par value, requires us to make assumptions with respect to each security. These assumptions include, but are not limited to, future interest rates, voluntary prepayment rates, default rates, mortgage modifications and loss severities. As part of our Non-Agency MBS surveillance process, we track and compare each security’s actual performance over time to the performance expected at the time of purchase or, if we have modified our original purchase assumptions, to our revised performance expectations. To the extent that actual performance or our expectation of future performance of our Non-Agency MBS deviates materially from our expected performance parameters, we may revise our performance expectations, such that the amount of purchase discount designated as credit discount may be increased or decreased over time. Nevertheless, credit losses greater than those anticipated or in excess of the recorded purchase discount could occur, which could materially adversely impact our operating results.

Table of Contents

It is our business strategy to hold our residential mortgage assets as long-term investments. On at least a quarterly basis, excluding investments for which the fair value option has been elected or for which specialized loan accounting is otherwise applied, we assess our ability and intent to continue to hold each asset and, as part of this process, we monitor our MBS and CRT securities for other-than-temporary impairment. A change in our ability and/or intent to continue to hold any of these securities that are in an unrealized loss position, or a deterioration in the underlying characteristics of these securities, could result in our recognizing future impairment charges or a loss upon the sale of any such security. At December 31, 2016, we had net unrealized gains of $19.5 million on our Agency MBS, comprised of gross unrealized gains of $50.7 million and gross unrealized losses of $31.2 million, and net unrealized gains on our Non-Agency MBS of $591.6 million, comprised of gross unrealized gains of $596.8 million and gross unrealized losses of $5.2 million. At December 31, 2016, we did not intend to sell any of our MBS or CRT securities that were in an unrealized loss position, and we believe it is more likely than not that we will not be required to sell those securities before recovery of their amortized cost basis, which may be at their maturity.

We rely primarily on borrowings under repurchase agreements to finance our residential mortgage assets. Our residential mortgage investments have longer-term contractual maturities than our borrowings under repurchase agreements. Even though the majority of our investments have interest rates that adjust over time based on short-term changes in corresponding interest rate indices (typically following an initial fixed-rate period for our Hybrids), the interest rates we pay on our borrowings will typically change at a faster pace than the interest rates we earn on our investments. In order to reduce this interest rate risk exposure, we may enter into derivative instruments, which at December 31, 2016 were comprised of Swaps.

Our Swap derivative instruments are designated as cash-flow hedges against a portion of our current and forecasted LIBOR-based repurchase agreements. Our Swaps do not extend the maturities of our repurchase agreements; they do, however, lock in a fixed rate of interest over their term for the notional amount of the Swap corresponding to the hedged item. During 2016, we did not enter into any new Swaps and had Swaps with an aggregate notional amount of $150.0 million and a weighted average fixed-pay rate of 1.03% amortize and/or expire. At December 31, 2016, we had Swaps designated in hedging relationships with an aggregate notional amount of $2.9 billion with a weighted average fixed-pay rate of 1.87% and a weighted average variable interest rate received of 0.72%.

Recent Market Conditions and Our Strategy

During 2016, we continued to invest in residential mortgage assets, including both MBS, CRT securities and, through consolidated trusts, residential whole loans. At December 31, 2016, our MBS portfolio was approximately $9.6 billion compared to $11.2 billion at December 31, 2015. At December 31, 2016, our total investment in residential whole loans was $1.4 billion compared to $895.1 million at December 31, 2015.

At December 31, 2016, $5.8 billion, or 60.9% of our MBS portfolio was invested in Non-Agency MBS. During the year ended December 31, 2016, the fair value of our Non-Agency MBS holdings decreased by $595.0 million. The primary components of the change during the year in these Non-Agency MBS include $2.3 billion of principal repayments and other principal reductions and the sale of Non-Agency MBS with a fair value of $85.6 million partially offset by $1.7 billion of purchases (at a weighted average purchase price of 99.3%), and an increase reflecting Non-Agency MBS price changes of $55.2 million.

At December 31, 2016, $3.7 billion, or 39.1% of our MBS portfolio was invested in Agency MBS. During the year ended 2016, the fair value of our Agency MBS decreased by $1.0 billion. This was due to $967.5 million of principal repayments, $36.9 million of premium amortization and a $9.3 million decrease in net unrealized gains.

In this low interest rate environment, we continue to invest in more credit sensitive, less interest sensitive residential mortgage assets. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we purchased, through consolidated trusts, approximately $659.4 million of residential whole loans with an unpaid principal balance of approximately $810.4 million. At December 31, 2016, our total recorded investment in residential whole loans was $1.4 billion. Of this amount, $590.5 million is presented as residential whole loans at carrying value and $814.7 million as residential whole loans at fair value in our consolidated balance sheets. For the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized approximately $23.9 million of income on residential whole loans held at carrying value in Interest Income on our consolidated statements of operations, representing an effective yield of 6.13% (excluding servicing costs). In addition, we recorded a net gain on residential whole loans held at fair value of $59.7 million in Other Income, net in our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.

During 2016 we purchased $194.9 million of CRT securities, which are debt obligations issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At December 31, 2016, our investments in these securities totaled $404.9 million.

Table of Contents

We currently expect to continue to seek more credit sensitive, less interest rate sensitive residential mortgage assets during 2017, including residential whole loans Non-Agency MBS and CRT securities. In order to achieve our current investment strategy, interest rate sensitive Agency MBS may continue to run off without reinvestment in this asset class.

Our book value per common share was $7.62 as of December 31, 2016. Book value per common share increased from $7.47 as of December 31, 2015 due primarily to the impact of fair value changes of Legacy Non-Agency MBS, CRT securities and Swaps, partially offset by a decline in fair value changes on our Agency MBS and the impact of discount accretion income on Legacy Non-Agency MBS that was recognized and declared as dividends during the year.

At the end of 2016, the average coupon on mortgages underlying our Agency MBS was slightly higher compared to the end of 2015, due to upward resets on Hybrid and ARM-MBS within the portfolio. As a result, the coupon yield on our Agency MBS portfolio increased to 2.82% for 2016 from 2.78% for 2015. The net Agency MBS yield decreased to 1.95% for 2016, from 2.00% for 2015 primarily due to an increase in premium amortization as a result of higher CPRs in 2016 compared to 2015. The net yield for our Legacy Non-Agency MBS portfolio was 7.90% for 2016 compared to 7.62% for 2015. The increase in the net yield on our Legacy Non-Agency MBS portfolio reflects the impact of the cash proceeds received during 2016 in connection with the settlements of litigation related to certain Countrywide and Citigroup sponsored residential mortgage backed securitization trusts and the improved performance of loans underlying the Legacy Non-Agency MBS portfolio, which has resulted in credit reserve releases, in the current and prior year. The net yield for our 3 Year Step-up securities portfolio was 3.90% for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to 3.68% for the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase in the net yield on this portfolio is primarily due to the addition of higher yielding securities during 2016 and the impact of redemptions during 2016 of certain securities that had been previously purchased at a discount.

We believe that our $694.2 million Credit Reserve and OTTI appropriately factors in remaining uncertainties regarding underlying mortgage performance and the potential impact on future cash flows for our existing Legacy Non-Agency MBS portfolio. Home price appreciation and underlying mortgage loan amortization have decreased the LTV for many of the mortgages underlying our Legacy Non-Agency portfolio. Home price appreciation during the past few years has generally been driven by a combination of limited housing supply, low mortgage rates and demographic-driven U.S. household formation. We estimate that the average LTV of mortgage loans underlying our Legacy Non-Agency MBS has declined from approximately 105% as of January 2012 to approximately 65% as of December 31, 2016. In addition, we estimate that the percentage of non-delinquent loans underlying our Legacy Non-Agency MBS that are underwater (with LTVs greater than 100%), has declined from approximately 52% as of January 2012 to 3% at December 31, 2016. Lower LTVs lessen the likelihood of defaults and simultaneously decrease loss severities. Further, since 2015 we have also observed faster voluntary prepayment (i.e. prepayment of loans in full with no loss) speeds than originally projected. The yields on our Legacy Non-Agency MBS that were purchased at a discount are generally positively impacted if prepayment rates on these securities exceed our prepayment assumptions. Based on these current conditions, we have reduced estimated future losses within our Legacy Non-Agency portfolio. As a result, during the year ended 2016, $37.7 million was transferred from Credit Reserve to accretable discount. This increase in accretable discount is expected to increase the interest income realized over the remaining life of our Legacy Non-Agency MBS. The remaining average contractual life of such assets is approximately 19 years, but based on scheduled loan amortization and prepayments (both voluntary and involuntary), loan balances will decline substantially over time. Consequently, we believe that the majority of the impact on interest income from the reduction in Credit Reserve will occur over the next ten years.

At December 31, 2016, we have access to various sources of liquidity which we estimate to be in excess of $684.5 million. This amount includes (i) $260.1 million of cash and cash equivalents; (ii) $221.1 million in estimated financing available from unpledged Agency MBS and from other Agency MBS collateral that is currently pledged in excess of contractual requirements; and (iii) $203.3 million in estimated financing available from unpledged Non-Agency MBS. Our sources of liquidity do not include restricted cash. We believe that we are positioned to continue to take advantage of investment opportunities within the residential mortgage marketplace. In 2017, we intend to continue to selectively acquire MBS and residential whole loans. In addition, while the majority of our Legacy Non-Agency MBS will not return their full face value due to loan defaults, we believe that they will deliver attractive loss adjusted yields due to our discounted average amortized cost of 73% of face value at December 31, 2016.

Repurchase agreement funding for our residential mortgage investments continues to be available to us from multiple counterparties. Typically, repurchase agreement funding involving credit-sensitive investments is available at terms requiring higher collateralization and higher interest rates, than for repurchase agreement funding involving Agency MBS. In July 2015, our wholly-owned subsidiary, MFA Insurance, became a member of the FHLB of Des Moines, further diversifying our potential sources of funding for residential mortgage investments. However, in January 2016, the Federal Housing Finance Agency released its final rule amending its regulation on FHLB membership, which, among other things, provided termination rules for current captive insurance members. As a result of such regulation, MFA Insurance is not permitted new advances or renewal of existing advances and is required to terminate its FHLB membership and repay any outstanding advances by February 19, 2017. During

Table of Contents

2016 we reduced our FHLB advances by approximately $1.3 billion to approximately $215.0 million at December 31, 2016. The FHLB advances outstanding at December 31, 2016 were all repaid in January 2017. At December 31, 2016, our debt consisted of borrowings under repurchase agreements with 31 counterparties, FHLB advances, Senior Notes outstanding and obligation to return securities obtained as collateral, resulting in a debt-to-equity multiple of 3.1 times. (See table on page 55 under Results of Operations that presents our quarterly leverage multiples since March 31, 2015.)

Information About Our Assets

The tables below present certain information about our asset allocation at December 31, 2016.

ASSET ALLOCATION



	Agency MBS			Legacy Non-Agency MBS			3 Year Step-up Securities (1)			MBS Portfolio			Residential Whole Loans, at Carrying Value (2)			Residential Whole Loans, at Fair Value			Other, net (3)			Total
(Dollars in Thousands)
Fair Value/Carrying Value	$	3,738,497		$	3,171,125		$	2,654,691		$	9,564,313		$	590,540		$	814,682		$	895,089		$	11,864,624
Less Repurchase Agreements	(3,095,020		)	(2,195,509		)	(2,078,684		)	(7,369,213		)	(343,063		)	(488,787		)	(271,205		)	(8,472,268		)
Less FHLB advances	(215,000		)	—			—			(215,000		)	—			—			—			(215,000		)
Less Senior Notes	—			—			—			—			—			—			(96,733		)	(96,733		)
Equity Allocated	$	428,477		$	975,616		$	576,007		$	1,980,100		$	247,477		$	325,895		$	527,151		$	3,080,623
Less Swaps at Market Value	—			—			—			—			—			—			(46,721		)	(46,721		)
Net Equity Allocated	$	428,477		$	975,616		$	576,007		$	1,980,100		$	247,477		$	325,895		$	480,430		$	3,033,902
Debt/Net Equity Ratio (4)	7.7		x	2.3		x	3.6		x				1.4		x	1.5		x				3.1		x


(1)	3 Year Step-up securities are MBS that are backed primarily by securitized re-performing and non-performing loans. The securities are structured such that the coupon increases up to 300 basis points at 36 months from issuance or sooner. Included with the balance of Non-Agency MBS reported on our consolidated balance sheets.


(2)	The carrying value of such loans reflects the purchase price, accretion of income, cash received and provision for loan losses since acquisition. At December 31, 2016, the fair value of such loans is estimated to be approximately $621.5 million.


(3)	Includes cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash, securities obtained and pledged as collateral, CRT securities, other assets, obligation to return securities obtained as collateral of $510.8 million and other liabilities.


(4)	Represents the sum of borrowings under repurchase agreements and FHLB advances as a multiple of net equity allocated. The numerator of our Total Debt/Net Equity Ratio also includes the obligation to return securities obtained as collateral of $510.8 million and Senior Notes.

Table of Contents

Agency MBS

The following table presents certain information regarding the composition of our Agency MBS portfolio as of December 31, 2016 and 2015:

December 31, 2016



(Dollars in Thousands)	Current Face		Weighted Average Purchase Price		Weighted Average Market Price		Fair Value (1)		Weighted Average Loan Age (Months) (2)	Weighted Average Coupon (2)		3 Month Average CPR
15-Year Fixed Rate:
Low Loan Balance (3)	$	1,170,788	104.3	%	103.0	%	$	1,206,174	55	2.97	%	11.2	%
HARP (4)	116,790		104.7		103.0		120,290		54	2.96		12.1
Other (Post June 2009) (5)	106,343		104.0		105.7		112,400		75	4.14		14.3
Other (Pre June 2009) (6)	564		104.9		105.9		597		91	4.50		28.8
Total 15-Year Fixed Rate	$	1,394,485	104.3	%	103.2	%	$	1,439,461	57	3.06	%	11.5	%

Hybrid:
Other (Post June 2009) (5)	$	1,370,019	104.4	%	104.8	%	$	1,436,184	67	2.99	%	19.9	%
Other (Pre June 2009) (6)	720,419		101.7		105.6		761,052		120	3.03		17.0
Total Hybrid	$	2,090,438	103.5	%	105.1	%	$	2,197,236	86	3.01	%	18.9	%
CMO/Other	$	96,379	102.5	%	102.9	%	$	99,196	187	2.81	%	14.7	%
Total Portfolio	$	3,581,302	103.8	%	104.3	%	$	3,735,893	77	3.02	%	15.9	%

December 31, 2015



(Dollars in Thousands)	Current Face		Weighted Average Purchase Price		Weighted Average Market Price		Fair Value (1)		Weighted Average Loan Age (Months) (2)	Weighted Average Coupon (2)		3 Month Average CPR
15-Year Fixed Rate:
Low Loan Balance (3)	$	1,430,258	104.3	%	103.1	%	$	1,475,086	44	2.99	%	8.4	%
HARP (4)	146,821		104.7		103.1		151,387		43	2.98		7.9
Other (Post June 2009) (5)	144,596		103.9		106.1		153,477		63	4.14		16.1
Other (Pre June 2009) (6)	745		104.9		106.8		796		79	4.50		28.9
Total 15-Year Fixed Rate	$	1,722,420	104.3	%	103.4	%	$	1,780,746	45	3.09	%	9.1	%

Hybrid:
Other (Post June 2009) (5)	$	1,811,007	104.4	%	104.8	%	$	1,897,030	56	2.89	%	15.6	%
Other (Pre June 2009) (6)	899,185		101.7		105.7		950,666		109	2.60		9.3
Total Hybrid	$	2,710,192	103.5	%	105.1	%	$	2,847,696	73	2.80	%	13.5	%
CMO/Other	$	117,791	102.5	%	104.2	%	$	122,771	175	2.52	%	12.2	%
Total Portfolio	$	4,550,403	103.8	%	104.4	%	$	4,751,213	65	2.90	%	11.8	%

(1) Does not include principal payments receivable of $2.6 million and $1.0 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

(2) Weighted average is based on MBS current face at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

(3) Low loan balance represents MBS collateralized by mortgages with an original loan balance of less than or equal to $175,000.

(4) Home Affordable Refinance Program (or HARP) MBS are backed by refinanced loans with LTVs greater than or equal to 80% at origination.

(5) MBS issued in June 2009 or later. Majority of underlying loans are ineligible to refinance through the HARP program.

(6) MBS issued before June 2009.

Table of Contents

The following table presents certain information regarding our 15-year fixed-rate Agency MBS as of December 31, 2016 and 2015:

December 31, 2016



Coupon	Current Face		Weighted Average Purchase Price		Weighted Average Market Price		Fair Value (1)		Weighted Average Loan Age (Months) (2)	Weighted Average Loan Rate		Low Loan Balance and/or HARP (3)		3 Month Average CPR
(Dollars in Thousands)
15-Year Fixed Rate:
2.5%	$	700,388	104.0	%	101.6	%	$	711,696	48	3.04	%	100	%	9.9	%
3.0%	288,648		105.9		103.3		298,311		54	3.49		100		11.3
3.5%	7,244		103.5		104.6		7,576		74	4.18		100		15.7
4.0%	343,105		103.5		105.9		363,258		73	4.40		80		14.2
4.5%	55,100		105.2		106.4		58,620		77	4.88		34		14.5
Total 15-Year Fixed Rate	$	1,394,485	104.3	%	103.2	%	$	1,439,461	57	3.54	%	92	%	11.5	%

December 31, 2015



Coupon	Current Face		Weighted Average Purchase Price		Weighted Average Market Price		Fair Value (1)		Weighted Average Loan Age (Months) (2)	Weighted Average Loan Rate		Low Loan Balance and/or HARP (3)		3 Month Average CPR
(Dollars in Thousands)
15-Year Fixed Rate:
2.5%	$	834,689	104.0	%	101.5	%	$	846,925	36	3.04	%	100	%	6.9	%
3.0%	355,439		105.9		103.4		367,471		42	3.49		100		8.0
3.5%	9,238		103.5		104.9		9,691		62	4.18		100		12.6
4.0%	448,064		103.5		106.4		476,793		61	4.40		79		13.1
4.5%	74,990		105.2		106.5		79,866		65	4.88		33		13.3
Total 15-Year Fixed Rate	$	1,722,420	104.3	%	103.4	%	$	1,780,746	45	3.57	%	92	%	9.1	%

(1) Does not include principal payments receivable of $2.6 million and $1.0 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

(2) Weighted average is based on MBS current face at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

(3) Low Loan Balance represents MBS collateralized by mortgages with an original loan balance less than or equal to $175,000. HARP MBS are backed by refinanced loans with LTVs greater than or equal to 80% at origination.

Table of Contents

The following table presents certain information regarding our Hybrid Agency MBS as of December 31, 2016 and 2015:

December 31, 2016



(Dollars in Thousands)	Current Face		Weighted Average Purchase Price		Weighted Average Market Price		Fair Value (1)		Weighted Average Coupon (2)		Weighted Average Loan Age (Months) (2)	Weighted Average Months to Reset (3)	Interest Only (4)		3 Month Average CPR
Hybrid Post June 2009:
Agency 5/1	$	551,736	104.3	%	105.7	%	$	583,318	2.93	%	76	6	25	%	17.7	%
Agency 7/1	618,414		104.5		104.3		645,200		3.00		62	21	24		22.8
Agency 10/1	199,869		104.7		103.9		207,666		3.13		58	61	64		17.1
Total Hybrids Post June 2009	$	1,370,019	104.4	%	104.8	%	$	1,436,184	2.99	%	67	21	30	%	19.9	%

Hybrid Pre June 2009:
Coupon < 4.5% (5)	$	691,572	101.7	%	105.6	%	$	730,626	2.92	%	121	6	33	%	16.9	%
Coupon >= 4.5% (6)	28,847		101.4		105.5		30,426		5.71		112