AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016

OR

For the transition period from                      to

Commission file number 001-35151

AG MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(212) 692-2000

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:

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  ¨    No  x

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  ¨    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  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 and Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No   ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of 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.    ¨

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.

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

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting common stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2016 was $390,492,603.

As of February 20, 2017, there were 27,701,902 shares of common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement relating to its 2017 annual meeting of stockholders, to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K where indicated.

AG MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Forward-Looking Statements

We make forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), in this report that are subject to substantial known and unknown risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements include information about possible or assumed future results of our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, plans, objectives, the composition of our portfolio, actions by governmental entities, including the Federal Reserve, and the potential effects of actual and proposed legislation on us. When we use the words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “plan,” “continue,” “intend,” “should,” “may” or similar expressions, we intend to identify forward-looking statements.

These forward-looking statements are based upon information presently available to our management and are inherently subjective, uncertain and subject to change. There can be no assurance that actual results will not differ materially from our expectations. Some, but not all, of the factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, changes in interest rates, changes in the yield curve, changes in prepayment rates, the availability and terms of financing, changes in the market value of our assets, general economic conditions, conditions in the market for Agency RMBS, Non-Agency RMBS, ABS and CMBS securities and loans, and legislative and regulatory changes that could adversely affect us. We caution investors not to rely unduly on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made, and urge you to carefully consider the risks noted above and identified under the captions “Risk Factors,” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and any subsequent filings. If any change described above occurs, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations may vary materially from those expressed in our forward-looking statements. New risks and uncertainties arise from time to time, and it is impossible for us to predict those events or how they may affect us. Except as required by law, we are not obligated to, and do not intend to, update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. All forward-looking statements that we make, or that are attributable to us, are expressly qualified by this cautionary notice.

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Our company

AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. (“we,” “us,” “the Company” or “our”) was incorporated in Maryland on March 1, 2011 and commenced operations in July 2011 after the successful completion of our initial public offering. We focus on investing in, acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of residential mortgage assets, other real estate-related securities and financial assets, which we refer to as our target assets.

We conduct our operations to qualify and be taxed as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, we generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income taxes on our taxable income that we distribute currently to our stockholders as long as we maintain our intended qualification as a REIT. We also operate our business in a manner that permits us to maintain our exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, or the Investment Company Act. Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, under the ticker symbol MITT. Our 8.25% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock and our 8.00% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock trade on the NYSE under the ticker symbols MITT-PA and MITT-PB, respectively.

We are externally managed and advised by AG REIT Management, LLC (our “Manager”), a subsidiary of Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P. (“Angelo, Gordon”). Pursuant to the terms of our management agreement with AG REIT Management, LLC, our Manager provides us with our management team, including our officers, along with appropriate support personnel. All of our officers are employees of Angelo, Gordon or its affiliates. We do not have any employees. Our Manager is at all times subject to the supervision and oversight of our board of directors and has only such functions and authority as our board of directors delegates to it. Our Manager, pursuant to a delegation agreement dated as of June 29, 2011, has delegated to Angelo, Gordon the overall responsibility with respect to our Manager’s day-to-day duties and obligations arising under our management agreement.

Our investment portfolio

Our investment portfolio is comprised of Agency RMBS, Non-Agency RMBS, CMBS, ABS, residential and commercial loans and excess mortgage servicing rights, each of which is described below.

Agency RMBS

Our investment portfolio is comprised primarily of mortgage-backed securities, specifically residential mortgage-backed securities, or RMBS. Certain of the assets in our RMBS portfolio have an explicit guarantee of principal and interest by a U.S. government agency such as the Government National Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae, or by a government-sponsored entity such as the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac (each, a “GSE”). We refer to these securities as Agency RMBS. Our Agency RMBS portfolio includes:

Non-Agency RMBS

Our investment portfolio also includes a significant portion of RMBS that are not issued or guaranteed by Ginnie Mae or a GSE, which we refer to as Non-Agency RMBS. Our Non-Agency RMBS investments include investment grade and non-investment grade fixed and floating-rate securities. We categorize some of our Non-Agency RMBS by weighted average credit score at origination:

The Non-Agency RMBS that we do not categorize by weighted average credit score at origination include our RMBS Interest-Only securities (Non-Agency RMBS backed by interest-only strips), CRTs (defined below), RPL/NPL MBS, (described below), and Securitized Whole Loans (described below).

Credit Risk Transfer securities (“CRTs”):

RPL/NPL MBS:

Securitized Whole Loans:

CMBS and ABS

We also invest in other target assets, including commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS, and asset backed securities, or ABS, which, together with Agency RMBS and Non-Agency RMBS, we collectively refer to as our real estate securities. Our CMBS portfolio includes CMBS, Freddie Mac K-Series CMBS (described below) and CMBS interest-only securities (CMBS backed by interest-only strips). Our ABS portfolio may include securities collateralized by various asset classes, including automobiles, credit cards and student loans, among others.

Freddie Mac K-Series CMBS (“K-Series CMBS”):

Other investments

We have also invested in residential and commercial mortgage loans, including RPLs and NPLs, as well as excess mortgage servicing rights (“MSRs”). We have the discretion to invest in other target assets such as other real estate structured finance products, other real estate-related loans and securities and interests in certain types of real estate.

As of December 31, 2016, we had a $2.4 billion GAAP investment portfolio, which consisted of $1.1 billion, or 43.5%, of assets in our GAAP Agency RMBS portfolio and $1.3 billion, or 56.5%, of assets in our GAAP credit portfolio. As of December 31, 2016, our investment portfolio totaled $2.5 billion, which consisted of $1.1 billion, or 43.5%, of assets in our Agency RMBS portfolio and $1.4 billion, or 56.5%, of assets in our credit portfolio.

Investment classification

Throughout this report, (1) we use the terms “credit portfolio” and “credit investments” to refer to our Non-Agency RMBS, ABS, CMBS, MSRs and residential and commercial mortgage loans, inclusive of investments held within affiliated entities but exclusive of AG Arc (discussed below); (2) we refer to our residential and commercial mortgage loans, collectively, as “loans” (3) we use the term “credit securities” to refer to our credit portfolio, excluding MSRs and loans; and (4) we use the term “real estate securities” or “securities” to refer to our Agency RMBS portfolio and our credit securities. Our “investment portfolio” refers to our combined Agency RMBS portfolio and credit portfolio and encompasses all of the investments described above.

We also use the term “GAAP investment portfolio” which consists of (i) our Agency RMBS, exclusive of TBAs (our “GAAP Agency RMBS portfolio)” and (ii) our credit portfolio, exclusive of all investments held within affiliated entities (our “GAAP credit portfolio”). See Note 2 to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of investments held within affiliated entities.

This presentation of our investment portfolio is consistent with how our management evaluates our business, and we believe this presentation, when considered with the GAAP presentation, provides supplemental information useful for investors in evaluating our investment portfolio and financial condition.

Arc Home LLC

In December 2015, we, alongside private funds under the management of Angelo, Gordon, through AG Arc LLC, one of our indirect subsidiaries (“AG Arc”), formed Arc Home LLC (“Arc Home”). In June 2016, Arc Home closed on the acquisition of a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), Veteran’s Administration (“VA”) and Ginnie Mae seller/servicer of mortgages with licenses to conduct business in 44 states, including Washington D.C. Through this subsidiary, Arc Home originates conforming, Government, Jumbo and other non-conforming residential mortgage loans, retains the mortgage servicing rights associated with the loans that it originates, and purchases additional mortgage servicing rights from third-party sellers. The capital commitment to Arc Home is $30.0 million, of which our share is $13.4 million. We have funded all of this commitment as of December 31, 2016.

Our strategies

Our investment strategy

We invest in a diversified pool of mortgage assets that generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for our investors over the long-term through a combination of dividends and capital appreciation. We rely on the experience of our Manager’s personnel to direct the Company’s investments. Our Manager’s investment philosophy is based on a rigorous and disciplined approach to credit analysis and is focused on fundamental in-depth research, taking a conservative valuation approach and diversification. Our Manager makes investment decisions based on a variety of factors, including expected risk-adjusted returns, relative value, credit fundamentals, vintage of collateral, prepayment speeds, supply and demand trends, general economic and market sector trends, the shape of the yield curve, liquidity, availability of adequate financing, borrowing costs, macroeconomic conditions, and maintaining our REIT qualification and our exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act. We continue to optimize our capital allocation across our target assets, using leverage to increase potential returns to our stockholders.

Our financing and hedging strategy

We generate income principally from the yields earned on our investment portfolio and, to the extent that leverage is deployed, on the difference between (i) the yields earned on our investments and (ii) the sum of our borrowing costs and hedging costs. We use leverage to increase potential returns to our stockholders and to fund the acquisition of our assets.

As of December 31, 2016 our non-GAAP “at-risk” and GAAP debt-to-equity leverage ratios were 2.9 to 1 and 2.9 to 1, respectively. As of December 31, 2015 our non-GAAP “at-risk” and GAAP debt-to-equity leverage ratios were 3.5 to 1 and 3.4 to 1, respectively. To calculate our leverage ratios, we divide our non-GAAP “at-risk” leverage and our GAAP leverage by our GAAP stockholders equity. We define non-GAAP “at-risk” leverage as the sum of: (i) our GAAP repurchase agreements, (ii) advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati (“FHLBC Advances”), if any, (iii) repurchase agreements held through affiliated entities but exclusive of any financing utilized through AG Arc (iv) the amount payable on purchases that have not yet settled less the financing remaining on sales that have not yet settled, (v) the consolidated tranche issued by the Consolidated VIE, (vi) the Participation Interest and (vii) our net TBA position (at cost). Our calculations of each type of leverage exclude repurchase agreements and net receivables/payables on unsettled trades pertaining to U.S. Treasury securities due to the highly liquid and temporary nature of these investments. For a tabular representation of our leverage, refer to the “Financing activities” section of Item 7.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes and our Investment Company Act exemption, to the extent leverage is deployed, we may use a number of sources to finance our investments. We currently finance the acquisition of certain assets within our portfolio with repurchase agreements. Prior to March 31, 2016, we also financed our Agency RMBS portfolio with FHLBC Advances. As of December 31, 2016, we, either directly or through our equity method investments in affiliates, had master repurchase agreements, (“MRAs”) or loan agreements with 37 counterparties, under which we had borrowed an aggregate $1.9 billion, on a non-GAAP basis from 23 counterparties. As of December 31, 2016, the borrowings under our repurchase agreements had maturities between January 3, 2017 and September 17, 2019.

In July 2015, our captive insurance subsidiary, MITT Insurance, was granted membership in the Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati (the “FHLBC”) and commenced obtaining advances from the FHLBC. However, in January 2016, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the FHFA, issued RIN 2590-AA39, Members of Federal Home Loan Banks (“the Final Rule”), which expressly excludes captive insurance companies, such as MITT Insurance (“Excluded Captives”), from being eligible for membership in the FHLBC. Refer to the “Recent government activity” section in Item 7 for more information. As of December 31, 2016, we had no outstanding advances with the FHLBC.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and our Investment Company Act exemption, to the extent leverage is deployed, we utilize derivative financial instruments, including interest rate swap agreements, TBAs, interest rate swaptions, credit derivatives and other instruments including Eurodollar futures and U.S. Treasury futures (collectively, “Futures”) and long or short positions in U.S. Treasury securities in an effort to manage and mitigate the interest rate risk associated with the financing of our portfolio. Specifically, we may seek to hedge our exposure to potential interest rate mismatches between the interest we earn on our investments and our borrowing costs caused by fluctuations in short-term interest rates. In utilizing leverage and interest rate hedges, our objectives are to improve risk-adjusted returns and, where possible, to lock in, on a long-term basis, a spread between the yield on our assets and the cost of our financing. As of December 31, 2016, we had entered into $644.0 million notional amount of interest rate swaps that have variable maturities between October 30, 2017 and December 7, 2026, $24.0 million notional amount of short positions in U.S. Treasury securities that mature on May 15, 2026 and $141.5 million notional amount of short positions in U.S. Treasury Futures that have variable maturities between January 27, 2022 and January 27, 2027.

Risk management strategy

Our overall portfolio strategy is designed to generate attractive returns through various phases of the economic cycle. We believe that our broad approach within the real estate market, which considers all major categories of real estate assets, allows us to invest in a variety of attractive investment opportunities and helps insulate our portfolio from some of the risks that arise from investing in a single collateral type.

The components of our risk management strategy are:

Investment policies

We comply with investment policies and procedures and investment guidelines (our “Investment Policies”) that are approved by our board of directors and implemented by our Manager. Our Manager reports on our investment portfolio at each regularly scheduled meeting of our board of directors. Our independent directors do not review or approve individual investment, leverage or hedging decisions made by our Manager made in accordance with our Investment Policies.

Our Investment Policies include the following guidelines, among others:

Our Investment Policies may be changed by our board of directors without the approval of our stockholders.

Our target assets

Our target asset classes and the principal investments in which we invest are as follows:

Our board of directors has adopted a set of investment guidelines that outline our target assets and other criteria which are used by our Manager to evaluate specific investment opportunities as well as our overall portfolio composition. Our Manager makes day-to-day determinations as to the timing and percentage of our assets that will be invested in each of the approved asset classes. Our decisions depend upon prevailing market conditions and may change over time in response to opportunities available in different interest rate, economic and credit environments. As a result, we cannot predict the percentage of our assets that will be invested in any one of our approved asset classes at any given time. We may change our strategy and policies without a vote of our stockholders. We believe that the diversification of our portfolio of assets and the flexibility of our strategy combined with our Manager’s and its affiliates’ experience will enable us to achieve attractive risk-adjusted returns under a variety of market conditions and economic cycles.

Our competitive advantages

We believe that our competitive advantages include the following:

Investment team with extensive RMBS experience

The experience of Angelo, Gordon’s investment professionals provides competitive advantages to us. Angelo, Gordon has over 160 investment professionals across its lines of investment disciplines. Of those, over 90 are involved in one of Angelo, Gordon’s real estate investment disciplines—RMBS, CMBS, commercial real estate, private equity real estate, real estate debt and net lease real estate. The insights, experience, and contacts of these professionals are available to us as a resource. Our Manager’s dedicated RMBS investment team has 20+ investment professionals that are part of the broader Angelo, Gordon Structured Credit Platform. The senior investment professionals have significant experience in managing residential mortgage-related assets through a variety of market cycles and credit and interest rate environments. Angelo, Gordon is an established leader in the alternative investment field and its overall investment philosophy is credit and value-centric in that its investment process is based on a highly analytical framework and, with respect to RMBS, takes into account factors such as loan-level cash flows, historical and current borrower performance and collateral valuation.

Breadth of Angelo, Gordon’s experience

Although our core investment strategy is focused on RMBS, Angelo, Gordon’s expertise in related investment disciplines such as residential and consumer debt, commercial real estate debt, commercial real estate, net lease real estate, distressed credit, leveraged loans and private equity provides our Manager with both (i) valuable investment insights to our RMBS investment selection and strategy and (ii) flexibility to opportunistically invest in target assets other than RMBS as market conditions warrant. As market conditions change and new opportunities are created that are consistent with our strategy and are structurally appropriate for us, we believe Angelo, Gordon’s extensive experience can assist our Manager in moving quickly to take advantage of those opportunities on our behalf.

Angelo, Gordon was founded in 1988 and is an SEC-registered investment adviser with approximately $27 billion under management as of December 31, 2016. The firm manages capital across eleven strategies: (i) convertible arbitrage, (ii) distressed debt, (iii) energy lending, (iv) merger arbitrage, (v) middle market direct lending, (vi) net lease real estate, (vii) non-investment grade corporate credit, (viii) private equity, (ix) real estate debt, (x) real estate equity, and (xi) residential and consumer debt. Angelo, Gordon has over 400 employees, including over 160 investment professionals. The firm is headquartered in New York with associated offices in Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Seoul.

Access to our Manager’s relationships

Angelo, Gordon has created a broad network of deal sources, including relationships with major issuers of residential debt securities and the broker-dealers that trade these securities, augmented by ongoing dialogue with a substantial number of smaller, regional firms that tend to find investment opportunities that are often priced and sold on an off-market basis. Our Manager’s investment team has extensive industry contacts and client relationships which have generated proprietary deal flow.

Disciplined investment approach and granular credit analysis

We seek to maximize our risk-adjusted returns through our Manager’s disciplined investment approach, which relies on rigorous quantitative and qualitative analysis. Our investment thesis is predicated upon in-depth loan-level analysis and our proprietary analytics, which allow us to underwrite loans individually based on updated borrower credit information and property attributes. Our focus on fundamental granular analysis remains the cornerstone of our investment philosophy, and we believe that through this approach we can identify attractive investment opportunities.

Access to Angelo, Gordon’s well developed infrastructure and asset management systems

Angelo, Gordon has invested and continues to invest in the technology, analytics and systems that we believe are required to effectively and comprehensively evaluate potential investments. Our Manager’s investment team and Angelo, Gordon’s technology group have developed proprietary databases, portfolio systems and quantitative models to enhance valuation analytics (pipeline modeling, roll rates and severity of loss, amongst others). Our Manager’s investment team has developed proprietary prepayment, default, delinquency, roll rate and loss severity models to analyze current mark-to-market home values on a loan-by-loan basis using borrower monthly performance statistics, credit characteristics and home price appreciation (or depreciation) by metropolitan statistical area for most of the residential market.

Access to Angelo, Gordon’s accounting, tax and internal risk management systems

Our Manager utilizes Angelo, Gordon’s well developed accounting, tax and internal risk management departments, comprising over 50 certified public accountants. Additionally, our Manager has access to Angelo, Gordon’s technology, client service, disaster recovery and operational infrastructure to support our operations.

Operating and regulatory structure

REIT qualification

We have elected to be treated as a REIT under Sections 856 through 859 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code. Our qualification as a REIT depends upon our ability to meet on a continuing basis, through actual investment and operating results, various complex requirements under the Code relating to, among other things, the sources of our gross income, the composition and values of our assets, our distribution levels and the diversity of ownership of our shares. We believe that we are organized in conformity with the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT under the Code, and that our manner of operation enables us to meet the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT.

To qualify as a REIT, we generally need to distribute at least 90% of our ordinary taxable income each year (subject to certain adjustments) to our stockholders in order to qualify as a REIT under the Code. Our ability to make distributions to our stockholders depends, in part, upon the performance of our investment portfolio. For the year ended December 31, 2016, we elected to satisfy the REIT distribution requirements in part with a dividend paid in 2017. In conjunction with this, we accrued an excise tax of $1.7 million in 2016, which is included in the “Taxes payable” line item on the consolidated balance sheets in Item 8.

As a REIT, we generally are not subject to U.S. federal income tax on our REIT taxable income that we distribute currently to our stockholders. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year and do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates and may be precluded from qualifying as a REIT for the subsequent four taxable years following the year during which we lost our REIT qualification. Accordingly, our failure to qualify as a REIT could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and our ability to pay distributions, if any, to our stockholders. Even if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to some U.S. federal, state and local taxes on our income or property. In addition, any income earned by a domestic taxable REIT subsidiary, or TRS, will be subject to corporate income taxation.

Investment Company Act exemption

We conduct our operations so that we are not considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act. Under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act, a company is deemed to be an investment company if it 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 its total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis, (the “40% test”). “Investment securities” do not include, among other things, U.S. government securities and securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries that (i) are not investment companies and (ii) are not relying on the exceptions from the definition of investment company provided by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act.

The operations of many of our wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries’ are generally conducted so that they are exempted from investment company status in reliance upon Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act. Because entities relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) are not investment companies, our interests in those subsidiaries do not constitute “investment securities” for purposes of Section 3(a)(1)(C). To the extent that our direct subsidiaries qualify only for either Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) exemptions from the Investment Company Act, we limit our holdings in those kinds of entities so that, together with other investment securities, we satisfy the 40% test. Although we continuously monitor our and our subsidiaries’ portfolios on an ongoing basis to ensure compliance with that test, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain the exemptions from registration for us and each of our subsidiaries.

The method we use to classify our subsidiaries’ assets for purposes of Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act is based in large measure upon no-action positions taken by the SEC staff. These no-action positions were issued in accordance with factual situations that may be substantially different from the factual situations we may face, and a number of these no-action positions were issued decades ago. No assurance can be given that the SEC or its staff will concur with our classification of our or our subsidiaries’ assets or that the SEC or its staff will not, in the future, issue further guidance that may require us to reclassify those assets for purposes of qualifying for an exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of companies primarily owning real estate related assets, including the SEC or its staff providing more specific or different guidance regarding these exemptions, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. To the extent that the SEC or its staff provides more specific guidance regarding Section 3(c)(5)(C) or any of the other matters bearing upon the definition of investment company and the exceptions to that definition, we may be required to adjust our investment strategy accordingly. Additional guidance from the SEC or its staff could provide additional flexibility to us, or it could further inhibit our ability to pursue the investment strategy we have chosen.

Conducting our operations so as not to be considered an investment company under the Investment Company Act limits our ability to make certain investments. For example, these restrictions limit our and our subsidiaries’ ability to invest directly in mortgage-related securities that represent less than the entire ownership in a pool of mortgage loans, debt and equity tranches of securitizations, certain real estate companies and assets not related to real estate.

Restrictions on ownership and transfer of shares

Our charter, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits any person from directly or indirectly owning (i) more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of our outstanding common stock, or (ii) more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of our outstanding capital stock. We refer to those limitations in this report collectively as the “share ownership limits.” Our charter also prohibits any person from directly or indirectly owning shares of any class of our stock if such ownership would result in our being “closely held” under Section 856(h) of the Code or otherwise cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT.

Our charter generally provides that any capital stock owned or transferred in violation of the foregoing restrictions will be deemed to be transferred to a charitable trust for the benefit of a charitable beneficiary, and the purported owner or transferee will acquire no rights in such shares. If the foregoing is ineffective for any reason to prevent a violation of these restrictions, then the transfer of such shares will be void ab initio.

Competition

Our net income depends, in large part, on our ability to acquire assets at favorable spreads over our borrowing and hedging costs. In acquiring our investments, we compete with other REITs, specialty finance companies, mortgage bankers, insurance companies, mutual funds, institutional investors, investment banking firms, financial institutions, governmental bodies, and other entities. In addition, there are numerous REITs and specialty finance companies with similar asset acquisition objectives. These other REITs and specialty finance companies increase competition for the available supply of our target assets suitable for purchase. Many of our competitors are significantly larger than we are, have access to greater capital and other resources and may have other advantages over us. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of investments and establish more relationships than we can. Market conditions may attract more competitors, which may increase the competition for sources of financing. An increase in the competition for sources of financing could adversely affect the availability and cost of financing.

We have access to our Manager’s professionals and their industry expertise, which we believe provides us with a competitive advantage. These professionals help us assess investment risks and determine appropriate pricing for certain potential investments. These relationships enable us to compete more effectively for attractive investment opportunities. Despite certain competitive advantages, we may not be able to achieve our business goals or expectations due to the competitive risks that we face.

Staffing

We are managed by our Manager pursuant to a management agreement. Our Manager, pursuant to a delegation agreement dated as of June 29, 2011, has delegated to Angelo, Gordon the overall responsibility with respect to our Manager’s day-to-day duties and obligations arising under our management agreement. In addition, all of our officers are employees of Angelo, Gordon or its affiliates. We have no employees. Angelo, Gordon has over 400 employees.

Available information

Our principal executive offices are located at 245 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, New York 10167. Our telephone number is (212) 692-2000. Our website can be found at www.agmit.com. We make available free of charge on, or through the SEC filings section of our website, access to our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports, as are filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as well as our proxy statements with respect to our annual meetings of stockholders, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Our Exchange Act reports filed with, or furnished to, the SEC are also available at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. The content of any website referred to in this Form 10-K is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K unless expressly noted. You also may inspect and copy these reports, proxy statements and other information, as well as the annual report and related exhibits and schedules, at the Public Reference Room of the SEC at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.

ITEM 1A. Risk Factors

If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and stockholders may lose some or all of their investment.

Risks related to our business

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

Our investment portfolio contains a significant allocation to RMBS, as well as other assets such as ABS, CMBS and mortgage loans. The relationship between short-term and longer-term interest rates is often referred to as the “yield curve.” In a normal yield curve environment, an investment in such assets will generally decline in value if long-term interest rates increase. Declines in market value may ultimately reduce earnings or result in losses to us, which may negatively affect cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Ordinarily, short-term interest rates are lower than longer-term interest rates. If short-term interest rates rise disproportionately relative to longer-term interest rates (a flattening of the yield curve), our borrowing costs will generally increase more rapidly than the interest income earned on our assets. Because our investments will generally bear interest based on longer-term rates than our borrowings, a flattening of the yield curve would tend to decrease our net income, book value and the market value of our net assets. It is also possible that short-term interest rates may exceed longer-term interest rates (a yield curve inversion), in which event our borrowing costs may exceed our interest income and we could incur operating losses. Additionally, to the extent cash flows from investments that return scheduled and unscheduled principal are reinvested, the spread between the yields on the new investments and available borrowing rates may decline, which would likely decrease our net income.

A significant risk associated with our target assets is the risk that both long-term and short-term interest rates will increase significantly. If long-term rates increase significantly, the market value of these investments will decline, and the duration and weighted average life of the investments will increase. At the same time, an increase in short-term interest rates will increase the amount of interest owed on the repurchase agreements we enter into to finance the purchase of our investments.

We may experience periods of illiquidity for our assets, which could adversely impact the value of our assets, our ability to finance our business or operate profitably.

Possible market developments, including adverse developments in financial and capital markets, could reduce the liquidity in the markets of the assets that we own. A lack of liquidity may result from the absence of a willing buyer or an established market for these assets, legal or contractual restrictions on resale or disruptions in the secondary markets. Such decreased liquidity can cause us to sell our assets at a price lower than we would normally sell them or cause us to hold our assets longer than we would normally hold them. In addition, such illiquidity could cause our lenders to require us to pledge additional assets as collateral. If we are unable to obtain sufficient short-term financing or our assets are insufficient to meet the collateral requirements, then we may be compelled to liquidate particular assets at an inopportune time. We bear the risk of being unable to dispose of our assets at advantageous times or in a timely manner, and if such assets experience periods of illiquidity, our profitability may be adversely affected and we could incur substantial losses.

Investment in new business strategies and acquisitions could disrupt the Company’s ongoing business and present risks not originally contemplated.

The Company has invested, and in the future may invest, in new business strategies or acquisitions. Such endeavors may involve significant risks and uncertainties, including distraction of management from current operations, greater than expected liabilities and expenses, inadequate return of capital and unidentified issues not discovered in the Company’s due diligence. These new ventures are inherently risky and may not be successful.

We may change our investment and operational policies without stockholder consent, which may adversely affect the market value of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our board of directors determines our operational policies and may amend or revise such policies, including our policies with respect to our REIT qualification, acquisitions, dispositions, operations, indebtedness and distributions, or approve transactions that deviate from these policies, without a vote of, or notice to, our stockholders. Operational policy changes could adversely affect the market value of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We may also change our investment strategies and policies and target asset classes at any time without the consent of our stockholders, which could result in our making investments that are different in type from, and possibly riskier than, our current assets or the investments contemplated in this report. A change in our investment strategies and policies and target asset classes may increase our exposure to interest rate risk, default risk and real estate market fluctuations, which could adversely affect the market value of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We are highly dependent on information systems and systems failures, breaches or cyber-attacks could significantly disrupt our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows.

Our business is highly dependent on the communications and information systems of our Manager. Any failure interruption or unauthorized access of these systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows and negatively affect the market price of our common stock and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

System breaches in particular are evolving and include, but are not limited to, malicious software, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data, and other electronic security breaches that could result in disruptions of our Manager’s communications and information systems, unauthorized release of confidential or proprietary information and damage or corruption of data. These events could lead to higher operating costs from remedial actions, loss of business and potential liability.

Risks related to our investments

The residential mortgage loans that we acquire, the mortgages underlying the RMBS that we acquire, the commercial mortgage loans we acquire, the commercial mortgage loans underlying the CMBS that we acquire and the assets underlying the ABS that we acquire are all subject to defaults, foreclosure timeline extension, fraud, price depreciation and unfavorable modification of loan principal amount, interest rate and premium, any of which could result in losses to us.

In the event of any default under a mortgage loan held directly by us or through a Non-Agency securitization structure we invest in, we bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan, which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations. In the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor in possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan.

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

In the event of defaults on the residential mortgage loans and residential mortgage loans that underlie our investments in RMBS and the exhaustion of any underlying or any additional credit support, we may not realize our anticipated return on our investments and we may incur a loss on these investments.

The CMBS that we invest in are secured by a single commercial mortgage loan or a pool of commercial mortgage loans and are subject to all of the risks of the respective underlying commercial mortgage loans. Our commercial mortgage loans are secured by multifamily or commercial property and are subject to risks of delinquency foreclosure and loss that are greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential property. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property, such as a multifamily or commercial property, typically is dependent primarily upon the successful business operation of such property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired and duration may be extended. Net operating income of an income-producing property can be affected by a number of factors that include:

We invest in ABS backed by various asset classes including, but not limited to, small balance commercial mortgages, aircraft, automobiles, credit cards, equipment, manufactured housing, franchises, recreational vehicles and student loans. ABS remain subject to the credit exposure of the underlying receivables. In the event of increased rates of delinquency with respect to any receivables underlying our ABS, we may not realize our anticipated return on these investments.

Our investments are subject to a significant change in prepayments speeds affecting the value of our portfolio and possibly adversely affecting yields.

The value of our assets may be affected by prepayment rates on residential mortgage loans. We acquire RMBS and anticipate that the underlying residential mortgages loans will prepay at a projected rate generating an expected yield. If we purchase assets at a premium to par value, when borrowers prepay their residential mortgage loans faster than expected, the corresponding prepayments on the mortgage-related securities may reduce the expected yield on such securities because we will have to amortize the related premium on an accelerated basis. In the case of Agency RMBS whole pools and certain other investment grade rated securities, we will be required to make a retrospective adjustment to historical amortization. Conversely, if we purchase assets at a discount to par value, when borrowers prepay their residential mortgage loans slower than expected, the decrease in corresponding prepayments on the RMBS may reduce the expected yield on such securities because we will not be able to accrete the related discount as quickly as originally anticipated and, in the case of Agency RMBS whole pools and certain other investment grade rated securities, we will have to make a retrospective adjustment to historical amortization.

Commercial mortgages frequently limit the ability of the borrower to prepay, thereby providing a certain level of prepayment protection. Common restrictions include yield maintenance and prepayment penalties, the proceeds of which are generally at least partially allocable to these securities.

These changes in prepayment rates may affect our ability to maintain targeted amounts of leverage on our portfolio and may result in reduced earnings or losses for us and negatively affect the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Our hedging strategies are generally not designed to mitigate credit spread risk.

When the market spread widens between the yield on our assets and benchmark interest rates, our net book value could decline if the value of our assets falls by more than the offsetting fair value increases on our hedging instruments tied to the underlying benchmark interest rates. We refer to this scenario as an example of “spread risk” or “ basis risk.” The spread risk associated with our mortgage assets and the resulting fluctuations in fair value of these securities can occur independently of changes in benchmark interest rates and may relate to other factors impacting the mortgage and fixed income markets, such as actual or anticipated monetary policy actions by the Federal Reserve, market liquidity, or changes in required rates of return on different assets. Consequently, while we use interest rate swap agreements, Eurodollar futures, U.S. Treasury note futures, put options and interest rate swap futures and other supplemental hedges to attempt to protect against moves in interest rates, such instruments typically will not protect our net book value against spread risk, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Because we acquire mainly fixed-rate securities, an increase in interest rates may adversely affect our book value.

Rising interest rates generally reduce the demand for mortgage loans due to the higher cost of borrowing. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans originated may affect the volume of our target assets available to us, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives. Rising interest rates may also cause our target assets that were issued prior to an interest rate increase to provide yields that are below prevailing market interest rates. If rising interest rates cause us to be unable to acquire a sufficient volume of our target assets with a yield that is above our borrowing cost, our ability to satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and pay dividends may be materially and adversely affected. Additionally, in periods of rising interest rates, our Agency RMBS may experience reduced returns if the owners of the underlying mortgages pay off their mortgages more slowly than anticipated. This could cause the prices of our Agency RMBS to fall more than we anticipated and for our hedge portfolio to underperform relative to the decline in the value of our Agency RMBS which could negatively affect our book value.

The failure of servicers to effectively service the mortgage loans underlying the RMBS in our portfolio or any mortgage loans we own may materially and adversely affect us.

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

We may be subject to the risks associated with inadequate or untimely services from third-party service providers, which may negatively impact our results of operations.

Loans underlying non-Agency MBS we own are serviced by third-party service providers. These servicers provide for the primary and special servicing of these securities. In that capacity these service providers control all aspects of loan collection, loss mitigation, default management and ultimate resolution of a defaulted loan including as applicable the foreclosure and sale of the real estate owned. The servicer has a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interest of the securitization trust, but significant latitude exists with respect to certain of its servicing activities. We have no contractual rights with respect to these servicers, and our risk management operations may not be successful in limiting future delinquencies, defaults, and losses. If a third party servicer fails to perform its duties under the securitization documents, this may result in a material increase in delinquencies or losses on the MBS. As a result, the value of the MBS may be impacted, and we may incur losses on our investment.

In addition, should a servicer experience financial difficulties, it may not be able to perform its obligations. Due to application of provisions of bankruptcy law, servicers who have sought bankruptcy protection may not be required to make advance payments required under the terms of the MBS of amounts due from loan borrowers. Even if a servicer were able to advance amounts in respect of delinquent loans, its obligation to make the advances may be limited to the extent that is does not expect to recover the advances due to the deteriorating credit of the delinquent loans.

Our Manager’s due diligence of potential investments may not reveal all of the liabilities associated with such investments and may not reveal other weaknesses in such investments, which could lead to investment losses.

Our Manager values our target assets based on loss-adjusted yields, taking into account estimated future losses on the mortgage loans included in the securitization’s pool of loans, and the estimated impact of these losses on expected future cash flows. Our Manager’s loss estimates may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates. In the event that our Manager underestimates the pool level losses relative to the price we pay for a particular investment, we may experience losses with respect to such investment.

Before making an investment, our Manager assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the originators, borrowers, and the underlying property values, as well as other factors and characteristics that are material to the performance of the investment. In making the assessment and otherwise conducting customary due diligence, our Manager relies on resources available to it and, in some cases, an investigation by third parties. There can be no assurance that our Manager’s due diligence process will uncover all relevant facts or that any investment will be successful.

Mezzanine loan assets involve greater risks of loss than senior loans.

We hold mezzanine loans which take the form of subordinated loans secured by second mortgages on the underlying property or loans secured by a pledge of the ownership interests of either the entity owning the property or a pledge of the ownership interests of the entity that owns the interest in the entity owning the property. These types of assets involve a higher degree of risk than long-term senior mortgage lending secured by income-producing real property, because the loan may become unsecured as a result of foreclosure by the senior lender. In the event of a bankruptcy of the entity providing the pledge of its ownership interests as security, we may not have full recourse to the assets of such entity, or the assets of the entity may not be sufficient to satisfy our mezzanine loan. If a borrower defaults on our mezzanine loan or debt senior to our loan, or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, our mezzanine loan will be satisfied only after the senior debt. As a result, we may not recover some or any of our initial investment. In addition, mezzanine loans may have higher loan-to-value ratios than conventional mortgage loans, resulting in less equity in the property and increasing the risk of loss of principal. Significant losses related to our mezzanine loans would result in operating losses for us and may limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

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

If the market value or income potential of our residential mortgage loans and other real estate-related assets declines as a result 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 may be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of certain investments. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent our REIT and Investment Company Act considerations.

We may be adversely affected by risks affecting borrowers or the asset or property types in which 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 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 among our investments.

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

The values of some of our investments may not be readily determinable. We measure the fair value of these investments in accordance with guidance set forth in Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC 820-10, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures.” Ultimate realization of the value of an asset depends to a great extent on economic and other conditions that are beyond the control of our Manager, our Company or our board of directors. Further, fair value is only an estimate based on good faith judgment of the price at which an investment can be sold since market prices of investments can only be determined by negotiation between a willing buyer and seller. If we were to liquidate a particular asset, the realized value may be more than or less than the fair value that we ascribe to that asset.

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

Our Manager utilizes analytical models and data in connection with the evaluation of our investments, and any incorrect, misleading or incomplete information used in connection therewith will subject us to potential risks.

Given the complexity of certain of our investments and strategies, our Manager must rely heavily on analytical models (both proprietary models developed by our Manager and those supplied by third parties) and information and data supplied by third parties. We use this information to value investments or potential investments and also to hedge our investments. When this information proves to be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon expose us to potential risks. For example, by relying on this potentially faulty information, especially valuation models, our Manager may be induced to buy certain investments at prices that are too high, to sell certain other investments at prices that are too low or to miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging may prove to be unsuccessful.

Some of the risks of relying on analytical models and third-party data are particular to analyzing tranches from securitizations, such as mortgage-backed securities. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) collateral cash flows and/or liability structures may be incorrectly modeled in all or only certain scenarios, or may be modeled based on simplifying assumptions that lead to errors; (ii) information about collateral may be incorrect, incomplete, or misleading; (iii) collateral or bond historical performance (such as historical prepayments, defaults, cash flows, etc.) may be incorrectly reported or subject to interpretation (e.g., different issuers may report delinquency statistics based on different definitions of what constitutes a delinquent loan); or (iv) collateral or bond information may be outdated, in which case the models may contain incorrect assumptions as to what has occurred since the date information was last updated.

Some of the analytical models used by our Manager, such as mortgage prepayment models, mortgage default models, and models providing risk sensitivities and duration output, are predictive in nature. The use of predictive models has inherent risks. For example, such models may incorrectly forecast future behavior, leading to potential losses on a cash flow and/or a mark-to-market basis. Incorrect sensitivities and duration output may lead to an unsound hedging strategy. In addition, the predictive models used by our Manager may differ substantially from those models used by other market participants, with the result that valuations based on these predictive models may be substantially higher or lower for certain investments than actual market prices. Furthermore, since predictive models are usually constructed based on historical data supplied by third parties, the success of relying on such models may depend heavily on the accuracy and reliability of the supplied historical data and the ability of these historical models to accurately reflect future periods.

All valuation models rely on correct market data inputs. If incorrect market data is entered into even a well-founded valuation model, the resulting valuations will be incorrect. However, even if the input of market data is correct, “model prices” often differ substantially from market prices, especially for securities that are illiquid and have complex characteristics, such as derivative securities.

Our investments in unsecuritized residential and commercial whole loans are difficult to value and are dependent upon the ability to finance, refinance and securitize such investments. The inability to do so could materially and adversely affect our liquidity and earnings and limit the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Our investments include investments in RPLs and 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. Investments in NPLs and sub-performing loans may involve workout negotiations, restructuring and the possibility of foreclosure. These processes may be lengthy and expensive. If loans become real estate owned, or REO, servicing companies will have to manage these properties and may not be able to sell them. See the “Our ability to sell REO on terms acceptable to us or at all may be limited” risk factor.

We may 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 to be more conservative, 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. The decline in housing prices may also result in higher loan-to-value ratios and leave borrowers with insufficient equity in their homes to permit them to refinance. To the extent prevailing mortgage interest rates rise from current 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.

Arc Home’s mortgage business is highly dependent upon programs administered by Ginnie Mae or a GSE, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to generate revenues through mortgage loan sales to institutional investors. Any changes in existing U.S. government-sponsored mortgage programs could materially and adversely affect Arc Home’s mortgage business and the value of our investment in Arc Home.

There is uncertainty regarding the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including with respect to how long they will continue to be in existence, the extent of their roles in the market and what forms they will take. The future roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be reduced or eliminated and the nature of their guarantees could be limited or eliminated relative to historical measurements. The elimination or modification of the traditional roles of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac could adversely affect Arc Home’s mortgage business and the value of our investment in Arc Home. Furthermore, any discontinuation of, or significant reduction in, the operation of these GSEs and Ginnie Mae, or any significant adverse change in the level of activity of these agencies in the primary or secondary mortgage markets or in the underwriting criteria of these agencies could materially and adversely affect Arc Home’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The residential mortgage loans which Arc Home’s mortgage business originates may be subject to delinquency, foreclosure and loss, which could result in losses to Arc Home and, as a result, in the diminution in the value of our investment in Arc Home.

Residential mortgage loans are secured by residential property and those that are not guaranteed by a U.S. Government agency or a GSE are subject to risks of delinquency, foreclosure and loss during the period of time that loans are held pending sale, generally 20-30 days. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property depends upon the income or assets of the borrower as well as a number of other factors. In the event of any default or underwriting flaw under a mortgage loan held directly by Arc Home’s mortgage business, it may bear, or be required to indemnify against, a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral on the one hand and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan on the other, which could have a material adverse effect on its cash flow from operations. In the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process which could have a substantial negative effect on Arc Home’s anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan.

The underwriting practices in Arc Home’s mortgage business may not adequately capture the risk inherent in its mortgage lending operations and failures in its underwriting process may result in loans that expose it to a greater risk of loss.

Arc Home’s mortgage business seeks to mitigate the risks inherent in its mortgage lending operations by adhering to specific underwriting practices. These practices will often include, among other things, analysis of a borrower’s prior credit history, credit score, employment, income verification, financial statements, tax returns and cash flow projections; valuation of collateral; and verification of liquid assets. If Arc Home’s underwriting process fails to capture accurate information or proves to be inadequate, Arc Home may incur losses on mortgage loans that meet its underwriting criteria, and those losses may exceed the amounts set aside as reserves. In addition, should the mortgage loans Arc Home originates sustain higher levels of delinquencies or defaults, Arc Home may lose the ability to originate or sell FHA loans, or to do so profitably. Any of these outcomes could negatively affect the value of our investment in Arc Home.

Arc Home’s acquisition of mortgage servicing rights exposes it to significant risks.

MSRs arise from contractual agreements between Arc Home and the investors (or their agents) in mortgage securities and mortgage loans. Arc Home generally acquires MSRs in connection with its sale of mortgage loans to the Agencies where it assumes the obligation to service such loans on their behalf. Arc Home also purchases MSRs from third-party sellers. Any MSRs Arc Home acquires are initially recorded at fair value on its balance sheet. The determination of the fair value of MSRs requires Arc Home’s management to make numerous estimates and assumptions. Such estimates and assumptions include, without limitation, estimates of future cash flows associated with MSRs based upon assumptions involving interest rates as well as the prepayment rates, delinquencies and foreclosure rates of the underlying serviced mortgage loans. The ultimate realization of the value of MSRs may be materially different than the values of such MSRs as may be reflected in Arc Home’s balance sheet as of any particular date. The use of different estimates or assumptions in connection with the valuation of these assets could produce materially different fair values for such assets. Accordingly, there may be material uncertainty about the fair value of any MSRs Arc Home acquires.

Changes in interest rates are a key driver of the performance of MSRs. Historically, the value of MSRs has increased when interest rates rise and decreased when interest rates decline due to the effect those changes in interest rates have on prepayment estimates. Arc Home may pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce its exposure to adverse changes in the fair value of its MSRs resulting from changes in interest rates. Arc Home’s hedging activity will vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, the type of assets held and other changing market conditions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect Arc Home. To the extent Arc Home does not hedge against changes in the fair value of its MSRs, it would be more susceptible to volatility due to changes in the fair value of, or cash flows from, MSRs as interest rates change.

Prepayment speeds significantly affect MSRs. Arc Home bases the price it pays for MSRs and the rate of amortization of those assets on, among other things, its projection of the cash flows from the related pool of mortgage loans. Arc Home’s expectation of prepayment speeds is a significant assumption underlying those cash flow projections. If prepayment speed expectations increase significantly, the fair value of the MSRs could decline, and Arc Home may be required to record a non-cash charge, which would have a negative impact on its financial results. Furthermore, a significant increase in prepayment speeds could materially reduce the ultimate cash flows Arc Home receives from MSRs, and it could ultimately receive substantially less than what it paid for such assets. Moreover, delinquency rates have a significant impact on the valuation of any MSRs. An increase in delinquencies generally results in lower revenue because typically Arc Home only collects servicing fees from Agencies or mortgage owners for performing loans. Arc Home’s expectation of delinquencies is also a significant assumption underlying its cash flow projections. If delinquencies are significantly greater than Arc Home expects, the estimated fair value of the MSRs could be diminished.

Furthermore, MSRs and the related servicing activities are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations and may be subject to various judicial and administrative decisions imposing various requirements and restrictions on Arc Home’s business. Arc Home’s failure to comply, or the failure of the servicer to comply, with the laws, rules or regulations to which Arc Home or the servicer are subject by virtue of ownership of MSRs, whether actual or alleged, could expose Arc Home to fines, penalties or potential litigation liabilities, including costs, settlements and judgments

Any of the above factors could have a material impact on Arc Home’s business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, or liquidity and thus could impact the value of our investment in Arc Home.

We are subject to additional risks associated with loan participations.

Some of our loans are participation interests or co-lender arrangements in which we share the rights, obligations and benefits of the loan with other lenders. We may need the consent of these parties to exercise our rights under such loans, including rights with respect to amendment of loan documentation, enforcement proceedings in the event of default and the institution of, and control over, foreclosure proceedings. Similarly, a majority of the participants may be able to take actions to which we object but to which we will be bound if our participation interest represents a minority interest. We may be adversely affected by this lack of full control.

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

REO assets are illiquid relative to other assets we may own. Furthermore, the real estate market is affected by many factors that are beyond our control, such as general economic conditions, availability of financing, interest rates and supply and demand. We cannot predict whether we will be able to sell any REO assets 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 asset. 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, earnings and cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Risks related to financing and hedging

We have incurred significant debt, which subjects us to increased loss and may reduce cash available for distributions to our stockholders.

Subject to market conditions and availability, we may further increase our debt in the future. We use leverage to finance our assets through borrowings from repurchase agreements and other secured and unsecured forms of borrowing. The amount of leverage we deploy for particular assets depends upon our Manager’s assessment of the credit and other risks of those assets. In addition, we may leverage individual assets at substantially higher levels. Incurring debt could subject us to many risks that, if realized, could materially and adversely affect us, including the risk that:

Interest rate fluctuations could significantly impact our results of operations and decrease our cash flows and the market value of our investments.

Most of our financing costs are determined by reference to floating rates, such as a LIBOR or a Treasury index, plus a margin, the amount of which will depend on a number of factors, including, without limitation, (i) for collateralized debt, the value and liquidity of the collateral, and for non-collateralized debt, our credit, (ii) the level and movement of interest rates and (iii) general market conditions and liquidity. In a period of rising interest rates, our interest expense on floating-rate debt would increase, while any additional interest income we earn on our floating-rate investments may not compensate for such increase in interest expense. Additionally, the interest income we earn on our fixed-rate investments would not change, the duration and weighted average life of our fixed-rate investments would increase and the market value of our fixed-rate investments would decrease. Similarly, in a period of declining interest rates, our interest income on floating-rate investments would decrease, while any decrease in the interest we are charged on our floating-rate debt may not compensate for such decrease in interest income. Additionally, interest we are charged on our fixed-rate debt would not change. Any such scenario could materially and adversely affect us.

Our operating results depend, in large part, on differences between the income earned on our investments, net of credit losses, and our financing and hedging costs. We anticipate that, in most cases, for any period during which our investments are not financed with borrowings of equal duration, the income earned on such investments will respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Consequently, changes in interest rates, particularly short-term interest rates, may immediately and significantly decrease our results of operations and cash flows and the market value of our investments.

We depend, and may in the future depend, on repurchase agreement financing to acquire target assets, and our inability to access this funding could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and business.

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

Our ability to fund our purchases of target assets may be impacted by our ability to secure financing arrangements on acceptable terms. We can provide no assurance that lenders will be willing or able to provide us with sufficient financing. In addition, because financing arrangements represent commitments of capital, lenders may respond to market conditions by making it more difficult for us to secure continued financing. During certain periods of the credit cycle, lenders may curtail their willingness to provide financing.

If major lenders stop financing our target assets, the value of our target assets could be negatively impacted, thus reducing net stockholders’ equity, or book value. Furthermore, if many of our lenders or potential lenders are unwilling or unable to provide us with financing arrangements, we could be forced to sell our target assets at an inopportune time when prices are depressed.

In addition, if the regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders change, our lenders may be required to significantly increase the cost of the financing that they provide to us. Our lenders also may revise their eligibility requirements for the types of assets they are willing to finance or the terms of such financings, based on, among other factors, the regulatory environment and their management of perceived risk, particularly with respect to assignee liability.

Moreover, the amount of financing we receive, or may in the future receive, under our financing arrangements is directly related to the lenders’ valuations of the target assets that secure the outstanding borrowings. If the valuation of our target assets decreases, we may be unable to access or maintain financing for our target assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, business and liquidity.

When we fund our purchases of target assets, we aim to secure sufficient financing on terms that are acceptable to us. The terms of the financings we receive are influenced by the demand for similar funding by our competitors, including other REITs, specialty finance companies and other financial entities. Many of our competitors are significantly larger than us, have greater financial resources and significantly larger balance sheets than we do. Any sizable interest rate shocks or disruptions in secondary mortgage markets resulting in the failure of one or more of our largest competitors could pose a significant risk to the U.S. economy, and would be expected to have a material adverse effect on our ability to access or maintain short-term financing for our target assets.

In October 2013 the International Monetary Fund issued its Global Financial Stability Report which states that a major interest rate shock could lead to forced asset sales by mortgage REITs. Such forced asset sales could adversely affect the market value and funding costs of our assets. The report suggested that, if warranted, government authorities could consider designating the largest mortgage REITs as systemically important non-bank financial entities. To date, the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council, the board of regulators established after the 2008 financial crisis, has not taken action to label any of the largest mortgage REITs as systemically important.

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

As of December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we, either directly or through our equity method investments in affiliates, have outstanding MRAs or loan agreements with 37 and 37 counterparties, respectively, under which we had borrowed an aggregate $1.9 billion and $2.5 billion, respectively, on a non-GAAP basis. These agreements 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, performance triggers or other financial ratios. If we fail to meet or satisfy any covenants, supplemental terms or representations and warranties, we would be in default under these agreements and our 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 financing agreements may contain cross-default provisions, so that if a default occurs under any one agreement, the lenders under our other agreements could also declare a default. Further, under our repurchase agreements, we may be 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 restrictions on us that would affect our ability to incur additional debt, make certain investments or acquisitions, reduce liquidity below certain levels, make distributions to our stockholders, redeem debt or equity securities and impact our flexibility to determine our operating policies and investment strategies. For example, our loan documents may contain negative covenants that limit, among other things, our ability to repurchase our common stock, distribute more than a certain amount of our net income or funds from operations to our stockholders, employ leverage beyond certain amounts, sell assets, engage in mergers or consolidations, grant liens and enter into transactions with affiliates. If we fail to meet or satisfy any of these covenants, we would be in default under these agreements, and our lenders could elect to declare outstanding amounts due and payable, terminate their commitments, require the posting of additional collateral and enforce their interests against existing collateral. We are 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.

Counterparties may require us to maintain a certain amount of cash uninvested or to set aside non-levered assets sufficient to maintain a specified liquidity position which would allow us to satisfy our collateral obligations. As a result, we may not be able to leverage our assets as fully as we would choose, which could reduce our return on equity.

Warehouse facilities and other forms of short-term financings may not always be available to finance our acquisition of residential and commercial loans.

Our ability to fund our acquisitions of residential and commercial loans depends on our securing warehouse, repurchase, and other forms of short-term financing on acceptable terms. We generally intend to repay the short-term financing of a pool of loans under one of these facilities at or prior to the expiration of that financing with the proceeds of a securitization or other sale of the loans, through the proceeds of other short-term borrowings, or with other equity or longer-term debt financing. In addition, while a loan is financed under a warehouse facility, to the extent the market value of the loan declines (which market value is generally determined by the counterparty under the facility), we are required to either immediately reacquire the loan or meet a margin requirement to pledge additional collateral, such as cash or additional loans, in an amount at least equal to the decline in value.

We cannot assure you that we will be successful in establishing sufficient sources of warehouse, repurchase facilities and other short-term debt when needed. Our inability to access warehouse and repurchase facilities, credit facilities, or other forms of debt financing on acceptable terms may inhibit our ability to acquire residential and commercial loans, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial results, financial condition, and business.

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

When we engage in financing arrangements, we generally sell securities to lenders (i.e., repurchase agreement counterparties) and receive cash from the lenders. The lenders are obligated to resell or return the same securities back to us at the end of the term of the transaction. Because the cash we receive from lenders when we initially sell or deliver the securities to the lender is less than the value of those securities (this difference is the haircut), if the lender defaults on its obligation to resell or return the same securities back to us we may incur a loss on the transaction equal to the amount of the haircut (assuming there was no change in the value of the securities). On December 31, 2016, we had greater than 5% stockholders’ equity at risk on a non-GAAP basis with each of 2 repurchase agreement counterparties: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and JP Morgan Securities, LLC.

We will also lose money on financing arrangements if the value of the underlying securities has declined as of the end of the transaction term, as we will have to repurchase or reclaim the securities for their initial value but will receive securities worth less than that amount. Further, if we default on one of our obligations under a financing arrangement, the lender will be able to terminate the transaction and cease entering into any other financing arrangements with us. If a default occurs under any of our financing arrangements and the lenders terminate one or more of our financing arrangements, we may need to enter into replacement financing arrangements with different lenders. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in entering into such replacement financing arrangements on the same terms as the financing arrangements that were terminated or at all. Any losses we incur on our financing arrangements could adversely affect our earnings and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Our rights under our repurchase agreements may be subject to the effects of the bankruptcy laws in the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of us or our lenders under the financing arrangements, which may allow our lenders to repudiate our financing arrangements.

In the event of our insolvency or bankruptcy, certain repurchase agreements may qualify for special treatment under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the effect of which, among other things, would be to allow the lender under the applicable repurchase agreements to avoid the automatic stay provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and to foreclose on the pledged collateral without delay, exacerbating our legal title and the right to proceeds. In the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of a lender during the term of a repurchase agreement, the lender may be permitted, under applicable insolvency laws, to repudiate the contract, and our claim against the lender for damages may be treated simply as that of 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 agreements 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.

Pursuant to the terms of borrowings under our financing arrangements, we are subject to margin calls that could result in defaults or force us to sell assets under adverse market conditions or through foreclosure.

We enter into financing arrangements to finance the acquisition of our target assets. Pursuant to the terms of borrowings under our financing arrangements, a decline in the value of the collateral may result in our lenders initiating margin calls. A margin call requires us to pledge additional collateral to re-establish the ratio of the value of the collateral to the amount of the borrowing. The specific collateral value to borrowing ratio that would trigger a margin call is not set in the master repurchase agreements or loan agreements and is not determined until we engage in a repurchase transaction or borrowing arrangement under these agreements. Our fixed-rate collateral generally may be more susceptible to margin calls as periods of increased interest rates tend to affect more negatively the market value of fixed-rate securities. In addition, some collateral may be more illiquid than other instruments in which we invest, which could cause them to be more susceptible to margin calls in a volatile market environment. Moreover, collateral that prepays more quickly increases the frequency and magnitude of potential margin calls as there is a significant time lag between when the prepayment is reported (which reduces the market value of the security) and when the principal payment is actually received. If we are unable to satisfy margin calls, our lenders may foreclose on our collateral. The threat of or occurrence of a margin call could force us to sell, either directly or through a foreclosure, our collateral under adverse market conditions. Because of the leverage we expect to have, we may incur substantial losses upon the threat or occurrence of a margin call.

Hedging against interest rate exposure may materially and adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and our exemption under the Investment Company Act, we pursue hedging strategies to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the level of interest rates, the type of investments held and other changing market conditions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:

In addition, we may fail to recalculate, re-adjust and execute hedges in an efficient manner which may negatively affect our earnings and book value. The degree of correlation between price movements of the instruments used in hedging strategies and price movements in the portfolio positions or liabilities being hedged may vary materially. It will be impossible to establish a perfect correlation between such hedging instruments and the portfolio positions or liabilities being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to increased risk of loss.

We may enter into hedging transactions that could expose us to contingent liabilities in the future.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, part of our investment strategy involves entering into hedging transactions that could require us to fund cash payments in certain circumstances (such as the early termination of the hedging instrument caused by an event of default or other early termination event or the decision by a counterparty to request margin securities it is contractually owed under the terms of the hedging instrument). The amount due would be equal to the unrealized loss of the open hedging positions with the respective counterparty and could also include other fees and charges. These economic losses will be reflected in our results of operations, and our ability to fund these obligations will depend on the liquidity of our assets and our access to capital at the time. The need to fund these obligations could adversely impact our financial condition.

Legacy hedging instruments may not be traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house, or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities and involve risks and costs that could result in material losses.

As of December 31, 2016, 46% of our swap portfolio consisted of legacy hedging instruments while 54% consisted of centrally cleared hedging instruments. Legacy hedging instruments involve risk since they may not be traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house, or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, there may be few or no requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and positions. Furthermore, the enforceability of agreements underlying derivative transactions may depend on compliance with applicable statutory, commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in a default. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to replace the affected hedging instruments, at the then current market price. Although generally we 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. No assurance can be given that a liquid secondary market will exist for derivative instruments purchased or sold, and we may be required to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in significant 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 uncertainty or adverse developments in financial markets.

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, such as interest rate swaps, are traded may require us to post additional collateral against our hedging instruments. Generally, independent margin goes up in times of interest rate volatility. In the event that future adverse economic developments or market uncertainty result in increased margin requirements for our hedging instruments, it could materially adversely affect our liquidity position, business, financial condition and results of operations.

It may be uneconomical to “roll” our TBA dollar roll transactions or we may be unable to meet margin calls on our TBA contracts, which could negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We utilize TBA dollar roll transactions as a means of investing in and financing Agency RMBS. TBA contracts enable us to purchase or sell, for future delivery, Agency RMBS with certain principal and interest terms and certain types of collateral, but the particular Agency RMBS to be delivered are not identified until shortly before the TBA settlement date.  Prior to settlement of the TBA contract we may choose to move the settlement of the securities out to a later date by entering into an offsetting position (referred to as a “pair off”), net settling the paired off positions for cash, and simultaneously purchasing a similar TBA contract for a later settlement date, collectively referred to as a “dollar roll.”  The Agency RMBS purchased for a forward settlement date under the TBA contract are typically priced at a discount to Agency RMBS for settlement in the current month. This difference (or discount) is referred to as the “price drop.”  The price drop is the economic equivalent of net interest carry income on the underlying Agency RMBS over the roll period (interest income less implied financing cost) and is commonly referred to as “dollar roll income.”  Consequently, dollar roll transactions and such forward purchases of Agency RMBS represent a form of off-balance sheet financing and increase our "at-risk" leverage.

Under certain market conditions, TBA dollar roll transactions may result in negative carry income whereby the Agency RMBS purchased for a forward settlement date under the TBA contract are priced at a premium to Agency RMBS for settlement in the current month.  Under such conditions, it may be uneconomical to roll our TBA positions prior to the settlement date, and we could have to take physical delivery of the underlying securities and settle our obligations for cash. We may not have sufficient funds or alternative financing sources available to settle such obligations.  In addition, pursuant to the margin provisions established by the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) of the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation we are subject to margin calls on our TBA contracts.  Further, our prime brokerage agreements may require us to post additional margin above the levels established by the MBSD. Negative carry income on TBA dollar roll transactions or failure to procure adequate financing to settle our obligations or meet margin calls under our TBA contracts could result in defaults or force us to sell assets under adverse market conditions or through foreclosure and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Risks associated with our management and relationship with our Manager and its affiliates

We are dependent upon our Manager, its affiliates and their key personnel and may not find a suitable replacement if the management agreement with our Manager is terminated or such key personnel are no longer available to us, which would materially and adversely affect us.

In accordance with our management agreement, we are externally managed and advised by our Manager, and all of our officers are employees of Angelo, Gordon or its affiliates. We have no separate facilities, and we have no employees. Pursuant to our management agreement, our Manager is obligated to supply us with our senior management team, and the members of that team may have conflicts in allocating their time and services between us and other entities or accounts managed by our Manager, now or in the future, including other Angelo, Gordon funds. Substantially all of our investment, financing and risk management decisions are made by our Manager and not by us, and our Manager also has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and strategies. Furthermore, our Manager has the sole discretion to hire and fire employees, and our board of directors and stockholders have no authority over the individual employees of our Manager, although our board of directors does have authority over our officers who are supplied by our Manager. Accordingly, we are completely reliant upon, and our success depends exclusively on, our Manager’s personnel, services, resources, facilities, relationships and contacts. No assurance can be given that our Manager will act in our best interests with respect to the allocation of personnel, services and resources to our business. In addition, the management agreement does not require our Manager to dedicate specific personnel to us or to require personnel servicing our business to allocate a specific amount of time to us. The failure of any of our Manager’s key personnel to service our business with the requisite time and dedication, or the departure of such personnel from our Manager, or the failure of our Manager to attract and retain key personnel, would materially and adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan. Further, when there are turbulent conditions in the real estate industry, distress in the credit markets or other times when we will need focused support and assistance from our Manager, the attention of our Manager’s personnel and executive officers and the resources of Angelo, Gordon will also be required by the other funds and accounts managed by our Manager and its affiliates, placing our Manager’s resources in high demand. In such situations, we may not receive the level of support and assistance that we may receive if we were internally managed or if our Manager did not act as a manager for other entities. If the management agreement is terminated and a suitable replacement for our Manager is not secured in a timely manner or at all, we would likely be unable to execute our business plan, which would materially and adversely affect us.

The management agreement was not negotiated on an arm’s length basis and the terms, including the fees payable to our Manager, may not be as favorable to us as if the agreement was negotiated with unaffiliated third parties.

All of our officers and our non-independent directors are employees of Angelo, Gordon or its affiliates. The management agreement was negotiated between related parties, and we did not have the benefit of arm’s length negotiations of the type normally conducted with an unaffiliated third party and the terms, including the fees payable to our Manager, may not be as favorable to us. We may choose not to enforce, or to enforce less vigorously, our rights under the management agreement because of our desire to maintain our ongoing relationship with our Manager.

We expect that our Manager will source all of our investments, and existing or future entities or accounts managed by our Manager may compete with us for, or may participate in, some of those investments, which could result in conflicts of interest.

Although we are subject to Angelo, Gordon’s allocation policy, which specifically addresses some of the conflicts relating to our investment opportunities, there is no assurance that this policy will be adequate to address all of the conflicts that may arise, or address such conflicts in a manner that results in the allocation of a particular investment opportunity to us or is otherwise favorable to us. Our Manager may be precluded from transacting in particular investments in certain situations, including, but not limited to, situations where Angelo, Gordon or its affiliates may have a prior contractual commitment with other accounts or clients or as to which Angelo, Gordon or any of its affiliates possess material, non-public information. Consistent with Angelo, Gordon’s fiduciary duty to all of its clients, it may give priority in the allocation of investment opportunities to certain clients to the extent necessary to apply regulatory requirements, client guidelines or contractual obligations. Angelo, Gordon or our Manager may determine that an investment opportunity is appropriate for a particular account, but not for another. In addition, Angelo, Gordon or its employees may invest in opportunities declined by our Manager for us. The investment allocation policy may be amended by Angelo, Gordon at any time without our consent. As the investment programs of the various entities and accounts managed by Angelo, Gordon change and develop over time, additional issues and considerations may affect Angelo, Gordon’s allocation policy and its expectations with respect to the allocation of investment opportunities.

Our Manager and Angelo, Gordon and their respective employees also may have ongoing relationships with the obligors of investments or the clients’ counterparties and they or their clients may own equity or other securities or obligations issued by such parties. In addition, Angelo, Gordon, either for its own accounts or for the accounts of other clients, may hold securities or obligations that are senior to, or have interests different from or adverse to, the securities or obligations that are acquired for us. Employees may also invest in other entities managed by other managers which are eligible to purchase target assets. Angelo, Gordon or our Manager and their respective employees may make investment decisions for us that may be different from those undertaken for their personal accounts or on behalf of other clients (including the timing and nature of the action taken). Angelo, Gordon and its affiliates may at certain times simultaneously seek to purchase or sell the same or similar investments for clients or for themselves. Likewise, our Manager may on our behalf purchase or sell an investment in which another Angelo, Gordon client or affiliate is already invested or has co-invested. Such transactions may differentiate across Angelo, Gordon clients or affiliates.

We may enter into transactions to purchase or sell investments with entities or accounts managed by our Manager.

Our Manager may make, or may be required to make, investment decisions on our behalf where our trading counterparty is an entity affiliated with or an account managed by our Manager. Although we are subject to Angelo, Gordon’s cross trade policy, which specifically addresses the requirements of these types of trades, there is no assurance that this policy will ensure the most favorable outcome for us or will ensure that this policy will be adequate to address all of the conflicts that may arise. There is no assurance that the terms of such transactions would be as favorable to us as transacting in the open market with unaffiliated third parties. Furthermore, the cross trade policy may be amended by Angelo, Gordon at any time without our consent. As the investment programs of the various entities and accounts managed by our Manager change over time, additional issues and considerations may affect the cross trade policy and our Manager’s expectations with respect to such transactions.

Our board of directors has approved very broad investment policies for our Manager and does not review or approve each investment decision made by our Manager.

Our Manager is authorized to follow very broad investment policies and, therefore, has great latitude in determining the types of assets that are proper investments for us, the allocations among asset classes and individual investment decisions. In the future, our Manager may make investments with lower rates of return than those anticipated under current market conditions or may make investments with greater risks to achieve those anticipated returns. Our board of directors periodically reviews our investment policies and our investment portfolio but does not review or approve each proposed investment by our Manager. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, our board of directors relies primarily on information provided to it by our Manager. Furthermore, our Manager may use complex strategies and transactions that may be costly, difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our board of directors.

The management fee may not provide sufficient incentive to our Manager to maximize risk-adjusted returns on our investment portfolio because it is based on our Stockholders’ Equity, adjusted for certain non-cash and other items, and not on our performance.

Our Manager is entitled to receive a management fee at the end of each quarter that is based on our Stockholders’ Equity, adjusted for certain non-cash and other items, as further discussed in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”. Accordingly, the possibility exists that significant management fees could be payable to our Manager for a given quarter despite the fact that we could experience a net loss during that quarter. Our Manager’s entitlement to such significant non-performance-based compensation may not provide sufficient incentive to our Manager to devote its time and effort to source and maximize risk-adjusted returns on our investment portfolio, which could, in turn, adversely affect our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and the market price of our common stock. The compensation payable to our Manager will increase as a result of any future issuances of our equity securities, even if the issuances are dilutive to existing stockholders.

Termination of our management agreement would be costly and, in certain cases, not permitted.

It is difficult and costly to terminate the management agreement we have entered into with our Manager without cause. Our independent directors review our Manager’s performance and the management fees annually. The management agreement renews automatically each year for an additional one-year period, subject to certain termination rights. As of December 31, 2016, our management agreement has not been terminated. The management agreement provides that it may be terminated annually by us without cause upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors or by a vote of the holders of at least two-thirds of our outstanding common stock, in each case based upon (i) our Manager’s unsatisfactory performance that is materially detrimental to us or (ii) our determination that the management fees payable to our Manager are not fair, subject to our Manager’s right to prevent termination based on unfair fees by accepting a reduction of management fees agreed to by at least two-thirds of our independent directors. Our Manager must be provided 180-days’ prior notice of any such termination. We may not terminate or elect not to renew the management agreement, even in the event of our Manager’s poor performance, without having to pay substantial termination fees. Upon any such termination without cause, the management agreement provides that we will pay our Manager a termination fee equal to three times the average annual management fee earned by our Manager during the 24-month period prior to termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter. While under certain circumstances the obligation to make such a payment might not be enforceable, this provision may increase the cost to us of terminating the management agreement and adversely affect our ability to terminate the management agreement without cause.

Our Manager may terminate the management agreement if we become required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act with termination deemed to occur immediately before such event, in which case we would not be required to pay a termination fee to our Manager. Furthermore, our Manager may decline to renew the management agreement by providing us with 180 days’ written notice, in which case we would not be required to pay a termination fee to our Manager. Our Manager may also terminate the management agreement upon at least 60 days’ prior written notice if we default in the performance of any material term of the management agreement and the default continues for a period of 30 days after written notice to us, whereupon we would be required to pay to our Manager the termination fee described above. If the management agreement is terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage us, we may not be able to execute our business plan.

Depository institutions that finance our investments may require that AG REIT Management, LLC remain as our Manager under the management agreement and that certain key personnel of our Manager continue to service our business. If AG REIT Management, LLC ceases to be our Manager or one or more of our Manager’s key personnel are no longer servicing our business, it may constitute an event of default and the depository institution providing the arrangement may have acceleration rights with respect to outstanding borrowings and termination rights with respect to our ability to finance our future investments with that institution. If we are unable to obtain financing for our accelerated borrowings and for our future investments under such circumstances, we may be required to curtail our asset acquisitions and/or dispose of assets at an inopportune time.

We have engaged Red Creek Asset Management LLC, an affiliate of our Manager (the “Asset Manager”) to manage certain of our residential mortgage loans and Securitized Whole Loans. The terms of the asset management agreement with the Asset Manager may not be as favorable to us as if the agreement was negotiated with unaffiliated third parties.

In connection with our investments in residential loans and Securitized Whole Loans, we engage asset managers to provide advisory, consultation, asset management and other services to formulate and implement strategic plans to manage, collect and dispose of loans in a manner that is reasonably expected to maximize the amount of proceeds from each loan. We engaged the Asset Manager, a related party of the Manager and direct subsidiary of Angelo, Gordon, as the asset manager for certain of our residential loans and Securitized Whole Loans. We pay separate arm’s-length asset management fees as assessed and confirmed by a third party valuation firm for (i) non-performing loans and (ii) reperforming loans, in each case, to the Asset Manager. The asset management agreement was negotiated between related parties, and we did not have the benefit of arm’s-length negotiations as we normally would with unaffiliated third parties. As such, the terms may not be as favorable to us as they otherwise might have been.

Risks related to U.S. government programs

The Federal Reserve’s recent increases of the federal funds rate could impact the market for and the value of the Agency RMBS in which we invest as well as our net asset value, net interest margin, net income and book value.

On December 16, 2016 the Federal Reserve announced its decision to raise the target range of the federal funds rate by 25 basis points, from a range of 0.25% - 0.50% to a range of 0.50% - 0.75%. The FOMC stated that the process of normalizing interest rates is likely to proceed gradually and future policy actions depend on how the economy evolves relative to the FOMC’s objectives of maximum employment and 2% inflation. A large portion of our portfolio is comprised of Agency RMBS and as a result, our net asset value, net interest margin, net income and book value could be negatively affected by additional increases in the federal funds rate.

Adoption of the Basel III standards could negatively affect our access to future financings.

In response to various financial crises and the volatility of financial markets, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, (the “Basel Committee”) an international body comprised of senior representatives of bank supervisory authorities and central banks from 27 countries, including the United States, adopted the Basel III standards several years ago. The final package of Basel III reforms was approved by the G20 leaders in November 2010. U.S. regulators have elected to implement substantially all of the Basel III standards, which plan to be fully phased in by January 1, 2019. One of these new standards involves implementing a supplemental leverage ratio (“SLR”) and a liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”).

The SLR applies to U.S. bank holding companies with $700 billion or more in consolidated assets, or over $10 trillion in assets under custody, and their bank subsidiaries. The SLR requires that a covered institution maintain a regulatory leverage buffer of 2% above the minimum leverage ratio that is otherwise required (3%), for a total of 5%, and covered bank subsidiaries must maintain a 6% leverage ratio to be considered well-capitalized. The LCR applies to all banking organizations with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets, or $10 billion or more in foreign exposure on the organization’s balance sheet, and a less stringent LCR applies to a banking organization with $50 billion or more in consolidated assets that does not meet the other tests. The LCR creates a minimum liquidity standard that requires a banking organization to hold high quality, liquid assets that would meet net cash outflows during a 30-day stress period. The SLR will be effective on January 1, 2018 and the LCR was effective on January 1, 2017. Implementation of these ratios may increase the financing costs of highly liquid assets, which may negatively impact our net interest margin and book value.

The Basel III standards will require certain banks to (i) hold more capital, predominantly in the form of common equity, than under the current capital framework, (ii) maintain specific leverage and liquidity ratios, (iii) decrease their reliance on short term, unstable financing and obtain and rely on funding sources that are stable and longer term in nature, (iv) calculate capital requirements using standardized models rather than the banks’ own internal models, (v) limit internal transfers between trading books and banking books, limiting the amount of capital that banks have available for deployment, and (vi) provide additional reporting regarding risk monitoring, among others. The adoption of these standards could impact the leverage and funding profiles of large financial institutions and their affiliates, including many broker-dealers and other subsidiaries that are affiliated with large banking organizations and from which we obtain financing, and may constrain our ability to obtain attractive future financings and increase the cost of such financings if they are obtained. If the adoption of these standards causes the availability of financing to decline, we may have fewer financing options in the future which could lead to lower profitability and could adversely affect our financial condition, net interest margin and book value.

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

The payments we receive on the Agency RMBS in which we invest depend upon a steady stream of payments on the mortgages underlying the securities and are guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. 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. 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.

In 2008 Congress and the U.S. Treasury undertook a series of actions to stabilize financial markets, generally, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in particular. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 was signed into law on July 30, 2008, and established the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or the FHFA, with enhanced regulatory authority over, among other things, the business activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the size of their portfolio holdings. On September 7, 2008, in response to the deterioration in the financial condition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, which is a statutory process pursuant to which the FHFA operates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as conservator in an effort to stabilize the entities. The appointment of the FHFA as conservator of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac allows the FHFA to control the actions of the two GSEs without forcing them to liquidate, which would be the case under receivership. In addition, the U.S. Treasury took steps to capitalize and provide financing to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and agreed to purchase direct obligations and Agency RMBS issued or guaranteed by them.

Shortly after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed in federal conservatorship, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, in announcing the actions, noted that the guarantee structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac required examination and that changes in the structures of the entities were necessary to reduce risk to the financial system. The future roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be significantly reduced and the nature of their guarantees could be eliminated or considerably limited relative to historical measurements. Any changes to the nature of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could redefine what constitutes Agency RMBS and could have broad adverse market implications as well as negatively impact our liquidity, financing rates, net income, and book value.

The problems faced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that resulted in their being placed into federal conservatorship have stirred debate among some federal policy makers regarding the continued role of the U.S. Government in providing liquidity for the residential mortgage market. The gradual recovery of the housing market has made Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac profitable again and increased the uncertainty about their futures. If federal policy makers decide that the U.S. Government’s role in providing liquidity for the residential mortgage market should be reduced or eliminated, each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be dissolved and the U.S. Government could decide to stop providing liquidity support of any kind to the mortgage market. If Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac were eliminated, or their structures were to change radically, we would not be able to acquire Agency RMBS from these companies, which would drastically reduce the amount and type of Agency RMBS available for investment.

Our income could be negatively affected in a number of ways depending on the manner in which related events unfold. For example, the continued backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the U.S. Treasury and, any additional credit support it may provide in the future to the GSEs could have the effect of lowering the interest rate we receive from Agency RMBS, thereby tightening the spread between the interest we earn on our Agency RMBS portfolio and our cost of financing that portfolio. A reduction in the supply of Agency RMBS could also increase the prices of Agency RMBS we seek to acquire thereby reducing the spread between the interest we earn on our portfolio of targeted assets and our cost of financing that portfolio.

Any new laws affecting these GSEs may exacerbate 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. It is also 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 adversely affect the pricing, supply, liquidity and value of our target assets and otherwise materially adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition.

We are subject to the risk that agencies of and entities sponsored by the U.S. government may not be able to fully satisfy their guarantees of Agency RMBS or that these guarantee obligations may be repudiated, which may adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio and our ability to sell or finance these securities.

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

As conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FHFA may disaffirm or repudiate (subject to certain limitations for qualified financial contracts) contracts that Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae entered into prior to the FHFA’s appointment as conservator if it determines, in its sole discretion, that performance of the contract is burdensome and that disaffirmation or repudiation of the contract promotes the orderly administration of its affairs. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, or HERA, requires the FHFA to exercise its right to disaffirm or repudiate most contracts within a reasonable period of time after its appointment as conservator. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have disclosed that the FHFA has disaffirmed certain consulting and other contracts that these entities entered into prior to the FHFA’s appointment as conservator. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have also disclosed that the FHFA has advised that it does not intend to repudiate any guarantee obligation relating to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s mortgage-related securities, because the FHFA views repudiation as incompatible with the goals of the conservatorship. In addition, HERA provides that mortgage loans and mortgage-related assets that have been transferred to a Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae securitization trust must be held for the beneficial owners of the related mortgage-related securities, and cannot be used to satisfy the general creditors of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.

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

Mortgage loan modification and refinancing programs may adversely affect the value of, and our returns on, mortgage-backed securities and residential mortgage loans.

The U.S. government, through the Federal Reserve, the FHA, the FHFA and the FDIC, has implemented a number of federal programs designed to assist homeowners, including the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, which provides homeowners with assistance in avoiding residential mortgage loan foreclosures, and the Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, which allows borrowers who are current on their mortgage payments to refinance and reduce their monthly mortgage payments at loan-to-value ratios up to 125% without new mortgage insurance. Similar modification programs are also offered by several large non-GSE financial institutions.

HAMP, HARP and other loss mitigation programs may involve, among other things, the modification of mortgage loans to reduce the principal amount of the loans (through forbearance and/or forgiveness) and/or the rate of interest payable on the loans, or to extend the payment terms of the loans. Non-Agency RMBS and residential mortgage loan yields and cash flows could particularly be negatively impacted by a significant number of loan modifications with respect to a given security or residential mortgage loan pool, including, but not limited to, those related to principal forgiveness and coupon reduction. These loan modification, loss mitigation and refinance programs may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, mortgage-backed securities and residential mortgage loans that we own or may purchase.

We cannot predict the impact, if any, on our earnings or cash available for distribution to our stockholders of the FHFA's proposed revisions to Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's existing infrastructures in order to align the standards and practices of the two entities.

On May 13, 2014, the FHFA released its updated 2014 Strategic Plan for the Conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which set forth three goals for the next phase of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conservatorships. These three goals are to (i) maintain foreclosure prevention activities and credit availability for new and refinanced mortgages, which should refine and improve servicing initiatives for distressed borrowers (ii) reduce taxpayer risk by expanding the credit risk transfer transactions which would increase the participation of private capital in assuming credit risk associated with the secondary mortgage market, and (iii) build a new single-family securitization infrastructure for use by the GSEs and adaptable for use by other participants in the secondary market in the future. This would be done by replacing the current, outdated infrastructures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a common, more efficient securitization infrastructure that aligns the standards and practices of the two entities, beginning with core functions performed by both entities such as issuance, master servicing, bond administration, collateral management and data integration, also known as the Common Securitization Platform (“CSP”).

There are a number of factors that could influence the FHFA’s success in achieving its goals and we cannot predict the impact, if any, on our earnings or cash available of the FHFA’s proposed revisions to Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s existing infrastructure.

Risks related to our organization and structure

Loss of our exemption from regulation under the Investment Company Act would negatively affect the value of shares of our common stock and our ability to distribute cash to our stockholders.

We conduct our operations so that we maintain an exemption from the Investment Company Act. Under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act, a company is an investment company if it is, or holds itself out as being, engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act, a company is deemed to be an investment company if it 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 its total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis (the “40% test”). “Investment securities” do not include, among other things, U.S. government securities, and securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries that (i) are not investment companies and (ii) are not relying on the exceptions from the definition of investment company provided by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act (the so called “private investment company” exemptions).

We are not engaged, except to a minor extent, in actively investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Rather, we are primarily engaged in the business of owning or holding the securities of our wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries that are in real estate-related businesses. Therefore, we believe that we are not an investment company as defined in Section 3(a)(1)(A).

We also believe we are not considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act. The operations of many of our wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries’ are generally conducted so that they are exempted from investment company status in reliance upon Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act. Because entities relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) are not investment companies, our interests in those subsidiaries do not constitute “investment securities” for purposes of Section 3(a)(1)(C). To the extent that our direct subsidiaries qualify only for either Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) exemptions from the Investment Company Act, we limit our holdings in those kinds of entities so that, together with other investment securities, we satisfy the 40% test. Although we continuously monitor our and our subsidiaries’ portfolios on an ongoing basis to determine compliance with that test, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain the exemptions from registration for us and each of our subsidiaries.

As discussed, we generally conduct our wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries’ operations so that they are exempted from investment company status in reliance upon Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act. Section 3(c)(5)(C) exempts from the definition of “investment company” entities primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate. The staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, generally requires an entity relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) to invest at least 55% of its portfolio in “qualifying assets” and at least another 25% in additional qualifying assets or in “real estate-related” assets (with no more than 20% comprised of miscellaneous assets).

The method we use to classify our and our subsidiaries’ assets for purposes of the Investment Company Act is based in large measure upon no-action positions taken by the SEC staff. These no-action positions were issued in accordance with factual situations that may be substantially different from the factual situations we may face, and a number of these no-action positions were issued decades ago. No assurance can be given that the SEC or its staff will concur with our classification of our or our subsidiaries’ assets or that the SEC or its staff will not, in the future, issue further guidance that may require us to reclassify those assets for purposes of qualifying for an exclusion from regulation under the Investment Company Act. In August 2011, the SEC solicited public comment on a wide range of issues relating to Section 3(c)(5)(C), including the nature of the assets that qualify for purposes of the exemption and leverage used by mortgage related vehicles. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of companies primarily owning real estate related assets, including the SEC or its staff providing more specific or different guidance regarding these exemptions, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. To the extent that the SEC or its staff provides more specific guidance regarding Section 3(c)(5)(C) or any of the other matters bearing upon the definition of investment company and the exceptions to that definition, we may be required to adjust our investment strategy accordingly. Additional guidance from the SEC or its staff could provide additional flexibility to us, or it could further inhibit our ability to pursue the investment strategy we have chosen.

Qualification for exemption from the definition of investment company under the Investment Company Act limits our ability to make certain investments. For example, these restrictions limit our and our subsidiaries’ ability to invest directly in mortgage-related securities that represent less than the entire ownership in a pool of mortgage loans, debt and equity tranches of securitizations, certain real estate companies or assets not related to real estate. If we fail to qualify for these exemptions, or the SEC determines that companies that invest in RMBS are no longer able to rely on these exemptions, we could be required to restructure our activities in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or we may be required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. Either of these outcomes could negatively affect the value of shares of our stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

If we were required to register with the CFTC as a Commodity Pool Operator, it could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or the CFTC, was given jurisdiction over the regulation of swaps. Under rules implemented by the CFTC, companies that utilize swaps as part of their business model, including many mortgage REITs, may be deemed to fall within the statutory definition of Commodity Pool Operator, or CPO, and, absent relief from the CFTC’s Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, may be required to register with the CFTC as a CPO. As a result of numerous requests for no-action relief from CPO registration, in December 2012 the CFTC issued no-action relief entitled “No-Action Relief from the Commodity Pool Operator Registration Requirement for Commodity Pool Operators of Certain Pooled Investment Vehicles Organized as Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts,” which permits a CPO to receive relief from registration requirements by filing a claim stating that the CPO meets the criteria specified in the no-action letter. We submitted a claim for relief within the required time period and believe we meet the criteria for such relief. There can be no assurance, however, that the CFTC will not modify or withdraw the no-action letter in the future or that we will be able to continue to satisfy the criteria specified in the no-action letter in order to qualify for relief from CPO registration. If we were required to register as a CPO in the future or change our business model to ensure that we can continue to satisfy the requirements of the no-action relief, it could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, our results of operations and our ability to operate our business.

Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit a change in our control.

Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law, or the MGCL, may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change in our control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then prevailing market price of such shares. We are subject to the “business combination” provisions of the MGCL 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 then outstanding voting shares or an affiliate or associate of ours who, at any time within the two-year period prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the voting power of our then outstanding voting shares) or an affiliate thereof for five years after the most recent date on which the stockholder becomes an interested stockholder and, thereafter, imposes special stockholder voting requirements to approve these combinations unless the consideration being received by common stockholders satisfies certain conditions. These provisions of the MGCL do not apply, however, to business combinations that are approved or exempted by the board of directors prior to the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. Pursuant to the statute, our board of directors has, by resolution, exempted business combinations between us and any other person, provided that the business combination is first approved by our board of directors. This resolution, however, may be altered or repealed in whole or in part at any time. If this resolution is repealed, or our board of directors does not otherwise approve a business combination, this statute may discourage others from trying to acquire control of us and increase the difficulty of consummating any offer.

The “control share” provisions of the MGCL provide that “control shares” of a Maryland corporation (defined as shares which, when aggregated with all other shares controlled by the stockholder, entitle the stockholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in the election of directors) acquired in a “control share acquisition” (defined as the acquisition of “control shares,” subject to certain exceptions) 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 votes entitled to be cast by the acquirer of control shares, our officers and our directors who are also our employees. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of our shares. There can be no assurance that this provision will not be amended or eliminated at any time in the future.

The “unsolicited takeover” provisions of the MGCL permit our board of directors, without stockholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our charter or bylaws, to implement certain provisions (since we have a class of equity securities registered under the Exchange Act and at least three directors who are not officers or employees of the corporation and are not affiliated with any acquiring person). These provisions may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making an acquisition proposal for us or of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in our control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then current market price.

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

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

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

Our charter limits the liability of our present and former directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages to the maximum extent permitted under Maryland law. Under current Maryland law, our present and former directors and officers will not have any liability to us or our stockholders for money damages other than liability resulting from:

Our charter authorizes us to indemnify our present and former directors and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Our bylaws require us to indemnify each present and former director or officer, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, in the defense of any proceeding to which he or she is made, or threatened to be made, a party by reason of his or her service to us. In addition, we may be obligated to pay or reimburse the expenses incurred by our present and former directors and officers without requiring a preliminary determination of their ultimate entitlement to indemnification. As a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights against our present and former directors and officers than might otherwise exist absent the current provisions in our charter and bylaws or that might exist with other companies, which could limit your recourse in the event of actions not in your best interest.

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

Our charter and bylaws provide that, subject to the rights of any series of preferred shares, a director may be removed only for “cause” (as defined in our charter), and then only by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of directors. Vacancies generally may be filled only by a majority of the remaining directors in office, even if less than a quorum, for the full term of the director who vacated. These requirements make it more difficult to change our management by removing and replacing directors and may prevent a change in our control that is in the best interests of our stockholders.

Risks related to taxation

Our failure to qualify as a REIT would result in higher taxes and reduced cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We operate in a manner that is intended to cause us to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, the U.S. federal income tax laws governing REITs are complex, and interpretations of the U.S. federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. Qualifying as a REIT requires us to meet various tests regarding the nature of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding stock, and the amount of our distributions on an ongoing basis.

Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends upon the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we will not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to successfully manage the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Although we intend to operate so that we will qualify as a REIT, given the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, no assurance can be given that we will so qualify for any particular year.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any calendar year, we would be required to pay 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. Further, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we might need to borrow money or sell assets in order to pay any resulting tax. Our payment of income tax would decrease the amount of our income available for distribution to our stockholders. Furthermore, if we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our REIT taxable income to our stockholders. Unless our failure to qualify as a REIT was subject to relief under U.S. federal tax laws, we could not re-elect to qualify as a REIT for four taxable years following the year in which we failed to qualify.

Complying with the REIT requirements can be difficult and may cause us to forego otherwise attractive opportunities.

To qualify 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 we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our shares. We may be required to make distributions to our stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution, and may be unable to pursue otherwise attractive investments in order to satisfy the source-of-income or asset-diversification requirements for qualifying as a REIT. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing profits.

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

We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our net taxable income, excluding any net capital gain, in order for corporate income tax not to apply to earnings that we distribute. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax, and may be subject to state and local income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our stockholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under U.S. federal income tax laws. We intend to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the requirements of the Code and to avoid paying corporate income tax. However, differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash could require us to sell assets or borrow funds on a short-term or long-term basis to meet the distribution requirements of the Code.

We may find it difficult or impossible to meet distribution requirements in certain circumstances. Due to the nature of the assets in which we will invest, we may be required to recognize taxable income from those assets in advance of our receipt of cash flow on or proceeds from disposition of such assets. For example, we may be required to accrue interest and discount income on mortgage loans, mortgage-backed securities, and other types of debt securities or interests in debt securities before we receive any payments of interest or principal on such assets. We also acquire distressed debt investments that may be subsequently modified by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding debt are “significant modifications” under the applicable Treasury regulations, the modified debt may be considered to have been reissued to us at a gain in a debt-for-debt exchange with the borrower, with gain recognized by us to the extent that the principal amount of the modified debt exceeds our cost of purchasing it prior to modification. Finally, we may be required under the terms of indebtedness that we incur to use cash received from interest payments to make principal payments on that indebtedness, with the effect of recognizing income but not having a corresponding amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

As a result, to the extent such income is not recognized within a domestic TRS, the requirement to distribute a substantial portion of our net taxable income could cause us to: (i) sell assets in adverse market conditions, (ii) borrow on unfavorable terms, (iii) distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt or (iv) make a taxable distribution of our shares as part of a distribution in which stockholders may elect to receive shares or (subject to a limit measured as a percentage of the total distribution) cash, in order to comply with REIT requirements. Moreover, if our only feasible alternative were to make a taxable distribution of our shares to comply with the REIT distribution requirements for any taxable year and the value of our shares was not sufficient at such time to make a distribution to our stockholders in an amount at least equal to the minimum amount required to comply with such REIT distribution requirements, we would generally fail to qualify as a REIT for such taxable year and would be precluded from being taxed as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we ceased to qualify as a REIT.

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

Even if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain U.S. federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, tax on income from certain activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, and state or local income, property and transfer taxes, such as mortgage recording taxes. In addition, in order to meet the REIT qualification requirements, or to avert the imposition of a 100% tax that applies to certain gains derived by a REIT from dealer property or inventory, we may hold certain assets through, and derive a significant portion of our taxable income and gains in, TRSs. Such subsidiaries are subject to corporate level income tax at regular rates. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Liquidation of assets may jeopardize our REIT qualification.

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

The failure of assets subject to repurchase agreements to be treated as owned by us for U.S. federal income tax purposes could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

We have entered and may in the future enter into repurchase agreements 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 which are secured by the assets sold pursuant thereto. We believe that we are 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 agreements 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 qualify as a REIT.

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

The REIT provisions of the Code may limit our ability to hedge our assets and operations. Under current law, any income that we generate from transactions intended to hedge our interest rate, inflation or currency risks will be excluded from gross income for purposes of the REIT 75% and 95% gross income tests if (i) the instrument hedges risk of interest rate or currency fluctuations on indebtedness incurred or to be incurred to carry or acquire real estate assets, (ii) the instrument hedges risk of currency fluctuations with respect to any item of income or gain that would be qualifying income under the REIT 75% or 95% gross income tests, or (iii) the instrument was entered into to “offset” certain instruments described in clauses (i) or (ii) of this sentence and certain other requirements are satisfied and such instrument is properly identified under applicable Treasury Regulations. Income from hedging transactions that do not meet these requirements may constitute nonqualifying income for purposes of both the REIT 75% and 95% gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may have to limit our use of hedging techniques that might otherwise be advantageous to us and could result in greater risks associated with interest rate fluctuations or other changes than we would otherwise be able to mitigate.

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

We may utilize TBA dollar roll transactions as a means of investing and financing Agency RMBS. The law is unclear regarding whether TBAs will be qualifying assets for the 75% asset test and whether income and gains from dispositions of TBAs will be qualifying income for the 75% gross income test.

Until such time as we seek and receive a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS or we are advised by counsel that TBAs should be treated as qualifying assets for purposes of the 75% asset test, we will limit our net investment in TBAs and any non-qualifying assets to no more than 25% of our assets at the end of any calendar quarter and will limit our investments in TBAs with a single counterparty to no more than 5% of our total assets at the end of any calendar quarter. Further, until such time as we seek and receive a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS or we are advised by counsel that income and gains from the disposition of TBAs should be treated as qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, we will limit our gains from dispositions of TBAs and any non-qualifying income to no more than 25% of our gross income for each calendar year. Accordingly, our ability to utilize TBA dollar roll transactions as a means of investing and financing Agency RMBS could be limited.

Moreover, even if we are advised by counsel that TBAs should be treated as qualifying assets or that income and gains from dispositions of TBAs should be treated as qualifying income, it is possible that the IRS could successfully take the position that such assets are not qualifying assets and such income is not qualifying income. In that event, we could be subject to a penalty tax or we could fail to qualify as a REIT if (i) the value of our TBAs, together with our non-qualifying assets for the 75% asset test, exceeded 25% of our gross assets at the end of any calendar quarter or if the value of our investments in TBAs with a single counterparty exceeded 5% of our total assets at the end of any calendar quarter or (ii) our income and gains from the disposition of TBAs, together with our non-qualifying income for the 75% gross income test, exceeded 25% of our gross income for any taxable year.

The tax on prohibited transactions will 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 with no offset for losses. 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 dispose of or securitize loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the loans, if we frequently buy and sell securities or open and close TBA contracts in a manner that is treated as dealer activity with respect to such securities or contracts for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Therefore, in order 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 may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions, even though the sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us.

The share ownership limits applicable to us that are imposed by the Code for REITs and our charter may restrict our business combination opportunities.

In order for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT under the Code, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding shares may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities) at any time during the last half of each taxable year after our first taxable year. Our charter, with certain exceptions, authorizes our board of directors to take the actions that are necessary or appropriate to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Under our charter, no person may own, directly or indirectly, (i) more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of our outstanding common stock, or (ii) more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of our outstanding capital stock. However, our board of directors may, in its sole discretion, grant an exemption to the share ownership limits (prospectively or retrospectively), subject to certain conditions and the receipt by our board of certain representations and undertakings. In addition, our board of directors may change the share ownership limits as described under “Business—Restrictions on ownership and transfer of our shares.” The share ownership limit is based upon direct or indirect ownership by “persons,” which is defined to include entities and certain groups of stockholders. Our share ownership limits might delay or prevent a transaction or a change in our control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.

The constructive ownership rules contained in our charter are complex and may cause the outstanding shares owned by a group of related individuals or entities to be deemed to be constructively owned by one individual or entity. As a result, the acquisition of less than these percentages of the outstanding shares by an individual or entity could cause that individual or entity to own constructively in excess of these percentages of the outstanding shares and thus violate the share ownership limits. Any attempt to own or transfer our common stock or preferred shares (if and when issued) in excess of the share ownership limits without the consent of our board of directors or in a manner that would cause us to be “closely held” under Section 856(h) of the Code (without regard to whether the shares are held during the last half of a taxable year) will result in the shares being deemed to be transferred to a director for a charitable trust or, if the transfer to the charitable trust is not automatically effective to prevent a violation of the share ownership limits or the restrictions on ownership and transfer of our shares, any such transfer of our shares will be void ab initio. Further, any transfer of our shares that would result in our shares being held by fewer than 100 persons will be void ab initio.

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

We have elected to treat one foreign entity as a TRS and we may elect to treat other foreign entities as TRSs in the future. We will likely be required to include in our income, even without the receipt of actual distributions, earnings from our investment in any 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 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 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.

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

There is a specific exemption from 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 and certain other foreign entities we may form or acquire in the future will rely on that exemption or otherwise operate in a manner so that they will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on their net income at the entity level. If the IRS succeeded in challenging that tax treatment, it would greatly reduce the amount that those entities would have available to distribute to us and to pay to their creditors.

New legislation or administrative or judicial action, in each instance potentially with retroactive effect, could make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify 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 our common stock. The U.S. federal tax rules that affect REITs are under review constantly by persons involved in the legislative process, the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department, which results in statutory changes as well as frequent revisions to Treasury regulations and interpretations. Revisions in U.S. federal tax laws and interpretations thereof could cause us to change our investments and commitments, which could also affect the tax considerations of an investment in our stock.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2. Properties

As of December 31, 2016, we did not own any real estate or other physical property materially important to our operations. Our principal executive offices are located at 245 Park Avenue, 26^th Floor, New York, New York 10167. Our telephone number is (212) 692-2000.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

We are at times subject to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. As of the date of this report, we are not party to any litigation or legal proceedings, or to our knowledge, any threatened litigation or legal proceedings, which we believe, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Item 4. Mine safety disclosures

Not applicable.

PART II

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

Market and dividend information

Our common stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol “MITT.” As of February 20, 2017, there were 27,701,902 shares of common stock outstanding and approximately 42 registered holders of our common stock. The 42 holders of record include Cede & Co., which holds shares as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, which itself holds shares on behalf of the beneficial owners of the Company’s common stock. Such information was obtained through the Company’s registrar and transfer agent, based on the results of a broker search.

The following tables set forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sale price of our common stock as reported on the NYSE and the dividends declared per share of our common stock.

We intend to pay quarterly dividends and to distribute to our stockholders all of our annual taxable income in a timely manner. This will enable us to maintain our qualification as a REIT under the Code. We have not established a minimum dividend payment level and our ability to pay dividends may be adversely affected for the reasons described under the caption “Risk Factors.” All distributions will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our earnings, our financial condition, maintenance of our REIT status, Maryland law and such other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time.

Equity compensation plan information

We have adopted equity incentive plans to provide incentive compensation to attract and retain qualified directors, officers, advisors, consultants and other personnel, including our Manager and personnel of our Manager and its affiliates. The total number of shares that may be made subject to awards under our Manager Equity Incentive Plan and our Equity Incentive Plan is 277,500 shares. Awards under our equity incentive plans are forfeitable until they become vested.

The following table presents certain information about our equity incentive plans as of December 31, 2016:

Performance graph

The following graph provides a comparison of the cumulative total return on our common stock from December 31, 2011 to the NYSE closing price per share on December 31, 2016 with the cumulative total return on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Composite Stock Price Index (the “S&P 500”) and an index of selected issuers of FTSE NAREIT Mortgage REITs. Total return values were calculated assuming $100 invested with the reinvestment of all dividends. Historical prices are not necessarily indicative of future price performance.

Source: Bloomberg.

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The selected financial data set forth below has been derived from the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements.

The information presented below is only a summary and does not provide all of the information contained in our historical financial statements, including the related notes. You should read the information below in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our historical financial statements, including the related notes, included elsewhere in this report.

Item 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion contains forward-looking statements and should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes to our consolidated financial statements, which are included in this report.

Our company

We are a Maryland corporation focused on investing in, acquiring and managing a diversified portfolio of residential mortgage assets, other real estate-related securities and financial assets, which we refer to as our target assets. We are externally managed by our Manager, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Angelo, Gordon, pursuant to a management agreement. Our Manager, pursuant to the delegation agreement dated as of June 29, 2011, has delegated to Angelo, Gordon the overall responsibility of its day-to-day duties and obligations arising under the management agreement. We conduct our operations to qualify and be taxed as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, we generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income taxes on our taxable income that we distribute currently to our stockholders as long as we maintain our intended qualification as a REIT. We also operate our business in a manner that permits us to maintain our exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, or the Investment Company Act. Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, under the symbol MITT. Our 8.25% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock and our 8.00% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock trade on the NYSE under the symbols MITT-PA and MITT-PB, respectively.

Market overview

Agency RMBS outperformed the selloff in benchmark rates during the fourth quarter as slowing prepayments, higher yields, reduced gross supply and a heavy Federal Reserve reinvestment schedule all served as tailwinds to the sector. Foreign investor and bank demand slowed in response to post-election rate volatility, but Fed buying surpassed the slowdown in gross issuance to more than offset the loss of yield based buying.  Agency RMBS derivatives, specifically interest only product, also experienced significant spread tightening in response to higher rates, slower projected prepayments and increased demand from hedge funds and money managers.

The outcome of the U.S. Presidential race during the fourth quarter resulted in a re-pricing of a broad array of financial instruments from risk assets to risk-free benchmark rates.  The 10-year U.S. Treasury rate moved 85bps higher in the fourth quarter. However, because this move followed a rally of similar magnitude earlier in the year in response to the first quarter growth scare and the Brexit vote, the 10-year U.S. Treasury rate moved only17bps higher over the course of 2016.  Our positive duration gap had a positive impact on book value and core for much of the year, but it resulted in a negative impact to book value during the fourth quarter. There has been a significant amount of speculation over the size, scope and potential impact of proposed fiscal stimulus measures and policy actions that may come from the new administration, but we feel there is too much uncertainty to gauge the economic impact at this time.  Given an increased distribution of possible economic outcomes and, as a result, ranges of possible interest rate scenarios, we chose to reduce our duration gap during the fourth quarter and to hedge the sizeable extension risk of our Agency RMBS. We added pay-fixed swaps as well as sold Agency RMBS, US Treasuries and US Treasury futures during the quarter.

Spreads for legacy mortgage assets (securities issued in 2010 or earlier) tightened through the end of the year following the U.S. election. Persistently favorable fundamentals and strong net demand continue to support positive performance in the legacy mortgage sectors. Spreads for the credit-risk transfer (CRT) sector were relatively volatile during the fourth quarter as election uncertainty and a heavy new issue calendar weighed on the market.  Spreads reversed course following the year’s final CRT deal which priced in early December.  During the quarter, we chose to rotate out of a portion of our CRT positions, RPL/NPL securities, and residential loans. Additionally, a consumer ABS position was refinanced and called by the issuer in October. We made an equity investment in a seasoned pool of performing and re-performing loans through a securitization, which is included in our Alt-A investment category, and purchased a commercial real estate loan during the quarter. Fixed rate securities and CMBS interest only securities experienced unrealized fair value losses due to higher interest rates during the fourth quarter.  Those losses were partially offset by credit spread tightening and there was an overall decline in credit book value for the fourth quarter. 

Housing, economic and interest rate trends

Inclusive of distressed sales, home prices nationwide increased by 7.2% on a year-over-year basis in December 2016 as compared with December 2015, according to data released by CoreLogic. This marks the 59th consecutive monthly increase year-over-year in national home prices. The housing market remains strong; however, given the duration and strength of the recovery, we expect home price appreciation to moderate but remain positive over the course of 2017. The U.S. government agencies and the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) policy sponsorship of housing via lower mortgage rates and the further loosening of credit available to prospective homeowners, coupled with a stable broader domestic economy, have provided some support for the housing market recovery.

According to CoreLogic, the aggregate value of all residential properties with negative equity (homes where the homeowner owes more on the home than the home is worth) decreased to $281.9 billion in the third quarter of 2016, from $306.9 billion in the third quarter of 2015, a decrease of 8.2%. For much of the country, the negative equity epidemic that developed during the 2008-2009 recession has lifted due to the rise in home prices over the past five years. CoreLogic predicts that if home prices rise an additional 5.0% in the next twelve months, 600,000 homeowners could regain positive equity. Additionally, credit performance in terms of serious delinquencies and subsequent default rates continued to improve in 2016 and is anticipated to remain stable in the near future.

The Fed, in its December 14, 2016 meeting, decided to raise the federal funds interest rate by 0.25%. Progress continues to be made with respect to the Fed’s dual mandate of full employment and price stability, as unemployment remains below 5% and year-over-year core personal consumption expenditures (core PCE) inches toward the Fed’s 2% target.  At the December meeting, the Fed modestly increased its median forecast for real GDP growth for 2016, 2017 and 2019, while lowering its median forecast for the unemployment rate in each of those same years.  As a result, the Fed increased their median expectation for the number of further federal funds rate increases in 2017 from two 25bp moves to three 25bps moves. U.S. Dollar strength, negative demographic trends and meager productivity growth continue to constrain longer term growth prospects and hold down the neutral federal funds rate. Notwithstanding the Fed’s increased forecasts, the pace of federal funds rate moves beyond 2017 was unchanged from the previous gradual pace. 

The initial reading on fourth quarter GDP growth decelerated sharply to 1.9% from 3.5% in the third quarter of 2016. Net exports and investment in nonresidential structures each proved to be a larger drag than expected, while personal consumption slowed in-line with expectations.  A surprise inventory accumulation added one percentage point to GDP growth, however real final sales rose just 0.9% in the fourth quarter.

The rise in savings rates since the financial crisis, continued low interest rates, steady employment gains and low energy costs have all contributed to significant improvement in the consumer’s balance sheet. This continues to fuel our optimism about the prospects of further housing recovery and longer term moderate home price appreciation. The U.S. housing market still benefits from favorable supply/demand dynamics, historically low mortgage rates and a willingness on the part of federal regulators at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) to further credit expansion and assist household formation. However, we expect that, without an increase in median income, the pace of home price appreciation is likely to moderate over the coming years.

The market movements outlined above have had a meaningful impact on our existing portfolio and may also have a significant impact on our operating results going forward. We also believe that current market dynamics may impact the availability and cost of financing. We expect that overall market conditions will continue to impact our operating results and will cause us to adjust our investment and financing strategies over time as new opportunities emerge and the risk profiles of our business change.

Recent government activity

On January 12, 2016, the FHFA issued RIN 2590-AA39, Members of Federal Home Loan Banks (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule, among other things, expressly excludes captive insurance companies, such as MITT Insurance Company LLC (“MITT Insurance”), from being eligible for membership in the Federal Home Loan Bank (the “FHLB”) system. Under the Final Rule, there is a one-year transition period from the effective date, February 19, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), within which the FHLB must wind down its relationships with any captive insurance companies that had been admitted to membership in the FHLB on or after September 12, 2014, including MITT Insurance (“Excluded Captives”). The Final Rule also prevents the FHLB from making any new advances or extending any existing advances to Excluded Captives after the Effective Date. Upon the termination of membership, the FHLB must liquidate all outstanding advances to Excluded Captives and settle all other business transactions in accordance with the Final Rule. In addition, all FHLB stock held by the terminated Excluded Captive will be repurchased or redeemed at the FHLB’s discretion. Therefore, MITT Insurance, along with all other Excluded Captives, must completely wind down all business relationships with the FHLB, including the repayment of all outstanding advances, prior to or simultaneously with the termination of MITT Insurance’s membership with the Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati (the “FHLBC”) where it is a member.

The current regulatory environment may be impacted by future legislative developments, such as amendments to key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, including provisions setting forth capital and risk retention requirements. The new administration’s agenda has not yet been proposed, but it may include certain deregulatory measures for the U.S. banking and financial industry, including to the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, one pending bill, called the Financial CHOICE Act would specifically remove risk retention requirements for non-residential mortgage securitizations.

In addition, according to publicly released statements, a top legislative priority of the new President’s administration and of Congress may be significant reform of the Internal Revenue Code, including significant changes to taxation of business entities. There is a substantial lack of clarity around both the timing and the details of any such tax reform and the impact of any potential tax reform on our operations.

Results of operations

Factors impacting our operating results

Our operating results can be affected by a number of factors and primarily depend on the size and composition of our investment portfolio, the level of our net interest income, the market value of our assets and the supply of, and demand for, our target assets in the marketplace, which can be impacted by unanticipated credit events, such as defaults, liquidations or delinquencies, experienced by borrowers whose mortgage loans are included in our RMBS. Our primary source of net income available to common stockholders is our net interest income, less our cost of hedging, which represents the difference between the interest earned on our investment portfolio and the costs of financing and hedging our investment portfolio. Our net interest income varies primarily as a result of changes in market interest rates, prepayment speeds, as measured by the Constant Prepayment Rate (“CPR”) on the Agency RMBS in our investment portfolio, and our funding and hedging costs.

The table below presents certain information from our Consolidated Statement of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2016, December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014:

Net Income (Loss)

Net income/(loss) available to common stockholders increased $49.9 million from $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 to $50.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 primarily due to higher prices on our securities, which increased our “Unrealized gain/(loss) on real estate securities and loans, net”, coupled with higher derivative prices, which increased our “Unrealized gain/(loss) on derivatives and other instruments, net”. Net income/(loss) available to common stockholders decreased $95.6 million from $95.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 to $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 primarily due to lower prices on our securities, which decreased our “Unrealized gain/(loss) on real estate securities and loans, net”, and the sale of certain derivatives at losses which decreased our “Realized gain/(loss)”.

Prior to January 1, 2015, the effective date for ASU No. 2014-11, certain line items on our consolidated statement of operations were netted within the “Income/(loss) from linked transactions, net” line item. As of January 1, 2015, those line items, (“Interest income”, “Interest expense”, Net realized gain/(loss)”, and “Unrealized gain/(loss) on real estate securities and loans, net”) have been grossed up.

Interest income

Interest income is calculated using the effective interest method for our GAAP investment portfolio and calculated based on the actual coupon rate and the outstanding principal balance on our U.S. Treasury securities.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2015

Interest income decreased by $18.3 million from $141.3 million at December 31, 2015 to $123.0 million at December 31, 2016 primarily due to a decrease in the weighted average cost of our GAAP investment portfolio and U.S. Treasury securities period over period by $0.4 billion from $3.2 billion at December 31, 2015 to $2.8 billion at December 31, 2016. This was coupled with a decrease in the weighted average yield on our GAAP investment portfolio and U.S. Treasury securities during the period of 0.08% from 4.45% at December 31, 2015 to 4.37% at December 31, 2016.

Year Ended December 31, 2015 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2014

Interest income decreased by $0.3 million from $141.6 million at December 31, 2014 to $141.3 million at December 31, 2015 primarily due to a decrease in the weighted average cost of our GAAP investment portfolio, and U.S. Treasury securities period over period by $0.2 billion from $3.4 billion at December 31, 2014 to $3.2 billion at December 31, 2015. This was offset by an increase in the weighted average yield on our GAAP investment portfolio and U.S. Treasury securities during the period of 0.34% from 4.11% at December 31, 2014 to 4.45% at December 31, 2015.

Interest expense

Interest expense is calculated based on the actual financing rate and the outstanding financing balance of our GAAP investment portfolio and U.S. Treasury securities.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2015

Interest expense increased by $2.6 million from $31.2 million at December 31, 2015 to $33.8 million at December 31, 2016 primarily due to an increase in the weighted average financing rate on our GAAP investment portfolio and U.S. Treasury securities during the period, by 0.28% from 1.19% at December 31, 2015 to 1.47% at December 31, 2016. This was offset by a decrease in the weighted average financing balance on our GAAP investment portfolio and U.S. Treasury securities during the period of $0.3 billion from $2.6 billion at December 31, 2015 to $2.3 billion at December 31, 2016. Refer to the “Financing activities” section below for a discussion of material changes in our cost of funds.

Year Ended December 31, 2015 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2014

Interest expense increased by $4.7 million from $26.5 million at December 31, 2014 to $31.2 million at December 31, 2015 primarily due to an increase in the weighted average financing rate on our GAAP investment portfolio and U.S. Treasury securities during the period, by 0.27% from 0.92% at December 30, 2014 to 1.19% at December 31, 2015. This was offset by a decrease in the weighted average financing balance on our GAAP investment portfolio and U.S. Treasury securities during the period by $0.3 billion from $2.9 billion at December 31, 2014 to $2.6 billion at December 31, 2015.

Net realized gain/(loss)

Net realized gain/(loss) represents the net gain or loss recognized on any sales out of our GAAP investment portfolio, Other assets, derivatives, or other instruments as well as transfers from Residential Mortgage Loans to Other assets or other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) charges recorded during the period. Refer to Footnote 2, Footnote 3 and Footnote 4 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” for further discussion on OTTI.

Year Ended December 31, 2016

During the year ended December 31, 2016, net realized gain/(loss) was $(10.4) million. We sold certain real estate securities and residential mortgage loans, realizing net gains of $6.9 million and $3.5 million, respectively. In addition, we recognized a $0.3 million realized gain on loans transferred to Other assets and a $0.3 million realized gain on the sale of Other assets. We also recognized $2.8 million of realized gains due to the settlement of TBAs, $4.8 million of realized loss due to the settlement of certain derivatives and other instruments, and $19.4 million of realized loss due to OTTI charges on certain securities and loans.

Year Ended December 31, 2015

During the year ended December 31, 2015, net realized gain/(loss) was $(17.1) million. We sold certain real estate securities and residential mortgage loans, realizing net gains of $7.9 million and $1.9 million, respectively. In addition, we recognized $1.9 million of realized gains due to the settlement of TBAs, $20.0 million of realized loss due to the settlement of certain derivatives and other instruments, and $8.8 million of realized loss due to OTTI charges on certain securities and loans.

Year Ended December 31, 2014

During the year ended December 31, 2014, net realized gain/(loss) was $3.6 million. We sold certain real estate securities, including a reversal of related tax benefits, realizing a net gain of $10.0 million. In addition, we recognized $5.5 million of realized gains due to the settlement of TBAs, $7.1 million of realized loss due to the settlement of certain derivatives and other instruments and $4.8 million of realized loss due to OTTI charges on certain securities.

Income/(loss) from linked transactions, net

On June 12, 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued ASU No. 2014-11. This amendment requires separate accounting for a transfer of a financial asset executed contemporaneously with a repurchase agreement with the same counterparty. If all derecognition criteria are met, the initial transferee will account for the initial transfer as a purchase and the related repurchase agreement component of the transaction will be accounted for as a secured borrowing. Refer to Note 7 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” for further detail on the adoption of ASU 2014-11 and its impact on our results of operations.

Realized loss on periodic interest settlement of derivative instruments, net

Realized loss on periodic interest settlement of derivative instruments, net represents the net interest expense paid on our interest rate swaps.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2015

Realized loss on periodic interest settlement of derivative instruments, net decreased by $7.2 million from $13.2 million at December 31, 2015 to $6.0 million at December 31, 2016 due to a decrease in swap notional amount for the period, coupled with an increase in the 3 month LIBOR rate. We net terminated $325.0 million notional amount of swaps from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016. In addition, 3 month LIBOR increased from 0.613% at December 31, 2015 to 0.998% at December 31, 2016.

Year Ended December 31, 2015 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2014

Realized loss on periodic interest settlement of derivative instruments, net decreased by $9.1 million from $22.3 million at December 31, 2014 to $13.2 million at December 31, 2015 due to a decrease in swap notional amount for the period, coupled with an increase in the 3 month LIBOR rate. We net terminated $477.0 million notional amount of swaps from December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2015. In addition, 3 month LIBOR increased from 0.256% at December 31, 2014 to 0.613% at December 31, 2015.

Unrealized gain/(loss) on real estate securities and loans, net

Refer to the “Market overview” section of this Item 7 for a discussion of the changes in market pricing which drive our “Unrealized gain/(loss) on real estate securities and loans, net” and “Unrealized gain/(loss) on derivatives and other instruments, net” line items. Realized gains and losses on sale generally impact unrealized gains and losses.

Year Ended December 31, 2016

For the year ended December 31, 2016, Unrealized gain/(loss) on real estate securities and loans, net was $2.7 million. The $2.7 million was comprised of unrealized gains on securities of $3.9 million, offset by unrealized losses on loans of $1.2 million during the year.

Year Ended December 31, 2015

For the year ended December 31, 2015, Unrealized gain/(loss) on real estate securities and loans, net was $(32.5) million. The $(32.5) million was comprised of unrealized losses on securities of $34.0 million, offset by unrealized gains on loans of $1.5 million during the year.

Year Ended December 31, 2014

For the year ended December 31, 2014, Unrealized gain/(loss) on real estate securities and loans, net was $72.5 million. The $72.5 million was comprised of unrealized gains on securities of $71.2 million, coupled with unrealized gains on loans of $1.3 million during the year.

Unrealized gain/(loss) on derivative and other instruments, net

Refer to the “Market overview” section of this Item 7 for a discussion of the changes in market pricing which drive our “Unrealized gain/(loss) on real estate securities and loans, net” and “Unrealized gain/(loss) on derivatives and other instruments, net” line items. Realized gains and losses on sale also impact unrealized gains and losses.

Year Ended December 31, 2016

For the year ended December 31, 2016, Unrealized gain/(loss) on derivative and other instruments, net was $8.6 million. The $8.6 million was comprised of unrealized gains on certain derivatives of $8.9 million, offset by unrealized losses on TBAs of $0.3 million during the year.

Year Ended December 31, 2015

For the year ended December 31, 2015, Unrealized gain/(loss) on derivative and other instruments, net was $(12.2) million. The $(12.2) million was comprised of unrealized losses on certain derivatives of $10.6 million, coupled with unrealized losses on TBAs of $1.6 million during the year.

Year Ended December 31, 2014

For the year ended December 31, 2014, Unrealized gain/(loss) on derivative and other instruments, net was $(51.3) million. The $(51.3) million was comprised of unrealized losses on certain derivatives of $52.7 million, offset by unrealized gains on TBAs of $1.4 million during the year.

Other income

Other income pertains to certain fees we receive on our residential mortgage loans.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2015

For the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, Other income was $0.4 million and $66,250, respectively. The increase in Other income pertains to increased fees we received on one of our residential mortgage loan pools.

Year Ended December 31, 2015 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2014

For the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 Other income was $66,250 and $29,127, respectively. The increase in Other income pertains to increased fees we received for holding our residential mortgage loan pools for an entire year.

Management fee to affiliate

Our management fee is based upon a percentage of our stockholders’ equity after excluding unrealized gains or losses and other non-cash items. See the “Contractual obligations” section of this Item 7 for further detail on the calculation of our management fee.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2015

For the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 our management fees were $9.8 million and $10.0 million, respectively. Management fees decreased slightly primarily due to the decrease in our stockholders’ equity from $666.9 million at December 31, 2015 to $655.9 million at December 31, 2016.

Year Ended December 31, 2015 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2014

For the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 our management fees were $10.0 million and $10.1 million, respectively. Management fees decreased slightly primarily due to the decrease in our stockholders’ equity from $732.7 million at December 31, 2014 to $666.9 million at December 31, 2015.

Other operating expenses

These amounts are primarily comprised of professional fees, directors’ and officers’ (“D&O”) insurance and directors’ fees, as well as certain expenses reimbursable to the Manager. We are required to reimburse our Manager or its affiliates for operating expenses which are incurred by our Manager or its affiliates on our behalf, including certain salary expenses and other expenses relating to accounting, legal, due diligence, and other services.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2015

For the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, Other operating expenses were $10.3 million and $12.4 million, respectively. The decrease of $2.1 million is primarily a result of decreased amounts reimbursed to the manager, decreased professional fees, and decreased fees paid for D&O insurance.

Of the $10.3 million and $12.4 million of Other operating expenses for year ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, the Company has expensed $6.0 million and $7.1 million, respectively, representing a reimbursement of expenses to the Manager or its affiliates.

Year Ended December 31, 2015 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2014

For the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Other operating expenses were $12.4 million and $11.9 million, respectively. The increase of $0.5 million is primarily a result of increased amounts reimbursed to the manager for certain deal related expenses as well as increased professional fees.

Of the $12.4 million and $11.9 million of Other operating expenses for year ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, the Company has expensed $7.1 million and $6.9 million, respectively, representing a reimbursement of expenses to the Manager or its affiliates.

Servicing fees

We incur servicing fee expenses in connection with the servicing of our residential mortgage loans. We previously acquired three pools of residential mortgage loans and will continue to pay fees as we hold these assets.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2015

For the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 our servicing fees were $0.4 million and $0.7 million, respectively. The decrease in fees primarily pertains to sales of residential mortgage loans during the period.

Year Ended December 31, 2015 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2014

For the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 our servicing fees were $0.7 million and $0.5 million, respectively. The increase in fees primarily pertains to the recognition of a full year’s worth of expense on our residential mortgage loans in 2015, after purchases of residential mortgage loans in 2014.

Equity based compensation to affiliate

Equity based compensation to affiliates represents the amortization of the fair value of our restricted stock units remeasured quarterly, less the present value of dividends expected to be paid on the underlying shares through the requisite service period.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2015

For the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, our equity based compensation to affiliate was $0.3 million and $0.2 million, respectively. The increase is a result of an increased stock price for the year.

Year Ended December 31, 2015 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2014

For the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, our equity based compensation to affiliate was $0.2 million and $0.3 million, respectively. The decrease is a result of a decreased stock price for the year.

Excise tax

Excise tax represents a four percent tax on the required amount of our ordinary income and net capital gains not distributed during the year. The quarterly expense is calculated in accordance with applicable tax regulations.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2015

For the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 our excise tax remained relatively unchanged.

Year Ended December 31, 2015 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2014

For the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 we recorded excise tax expense of $1.5 million and $1.8 million, respectively. The decrease pertains to an increased excise tax in 2014 paid in conjunction with the filing of our 2013 tax return.

Equity in earnings/(loss) from affiliates

Equity in earnings/(loss) from affiliates represents our share of earnings and profits of investments held within affiliated entities. A majority of these investments are comprised of real estate securities, loans and our investment in AG Arc.

Year Ended December 31, 2016 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2015

For the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 we recorded Equity in earnings/(loss) from affiliates of $1.5 million and $3.4 million, respectively. The decrease primarily pertains to unrealized losses on investments held within affiliated entities.

Year Ended December 31, 2015 compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2014

For the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 we recorded Equity in earnings/(loss) from affiliates of $3.4 million and $3.7 million, respectively. The decrease primarily pertains to realized losses on investments held within affiliated entities.

Book value per share

As of December 31, 2016, December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, our book value per common share was $17.86, $17.88 and $20.13, respectively.

Presentation of investment, financing and hedging activities

In the “Investment activities,” “Financing activities”, “Hedging activities” and “Liquidity and capital resources” sections of this Item 7, where we disclose our investment portfolio and the related repurchase agreements and FHLBC Advances, if applicable, that finance it, we have presented this information inclusive of (i) unconsolidated ownership interests in affiliates that are accounted for under GAAP using the equity method and (ii) TBAs, which are accounted for as derivatives under GAAP. Our investment portfolio and the related repurchase agreements and FHLBC Advances, if applicable, that finance it are presented along with a reconciliation to GAAP. This presentation of our investment portfolio is consistent with how our management evaluates the business, and we believe this presentation, when considered with the GAAP presentation, provides supplemental information useful for investors in evaluating our investment portfolio and financial condition. See Note 2 to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of investments in debt and equity of affiliates.

Net interest margin

Net interest margin is calculated by subtracting the weighted average cost of funds from the weighted average yield for our investment portfolio, which excludes cash held by us and any net TBA position. The weighted average yield on our investment portfolio represents an effective interest rate, which utilizes all estimates of future cash flows and adjusts for actual prepayment and cash flow activity as of quarter-end. The weighted average cost of funds is the sum of the weighted average funding costs on total financing outstanding at quarter-end and our weighted average hedging cost, which is the weighted average of the net pay rate on our interest rate swaps, the net receive/pay rate on our Treasury long and short positions, respectively, and the net receivable rate on our IO index derivatives, if any. Both elements of cost of funds are weighted by the outstanding repurchase agreements on our investment portfolio, securitized debt, and loan participation payable at quarter-end, exclusive of repurchase agreements associated with U.S. Treasury securities.

Our GAAP net interest margin is calculated by subtracting the weighted average cost of funds on our GAAP investment portfolio from the weighted average yield for our GAAP investment portfolio, which excludes cash held by us and any net TBA position. Both elements of cost of funds on our GAAP investment portfolio are weighted by the outstanding repurchase agreements on our GAAP investment portfolio, securitized debt, and loan participation payable at quarter-end, exclusive of repurchase agreements associated with U.S. Treasury securities.

See below for a reconciliation of net interest margin from our GAAP investment portfolio to our investment portfolio as of December 31, 2016, December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2014:

*Excludes any net TBA position.

Core earnings

We define core earnings, a non-GAAP financial measure, as net income excluding both unrealized and realized gains/(losses) on the sale or termination of securities and the related tax expense/benefit or disposition expense, if any, on such sale, including (i) investments held in affiliated entities and (ii) derivatives. As defined, Core Earnings include the net interest and other income earned on these investments on a yield adjusted basis, including credit derivatives, investments in debt and equity of affiliates, inverse Agency Interest-Only securities, interest rate derivatives, TBA drop income or any other investment activity that may earn or pay net interest or its economic equivalent. One of our objectives is to generate net income from net interest margin on the portfolio, and management uses Core Earnings to measure this objective. Management believes that this non-GAAP measure, when considered with the Company’s GAAP financials, provides supplemental information useful for investors in evaluating our results of operations. This metric, in conjunction with related GAAP measures, provides greater transparency into the information used by our management in its financial and operational decision-making. Our presentation of Core Earnings may not be comparable to similarly-titled measures of other companies, who may use different calculations. This non-GAAP measure should not be considered a substitute for, or superior to, the financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. Our GAAP financial results and the reconciliations from these results should be carefully evaluated. Refer to the “Results of Operations” section above for a detailed discussion of our GAAP financial results.

A reconciliation of GAAP net income to Core Earnings for the years ended December 31, 2016, December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 is set forth below:

*For the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized $(0.4) million or $(0.01) per share of net income/(loss) attributed to our investment in AG Arc. We did not recognize any net income/(loss) on our investment in AG Arc for the years ended December 31, 2015 or December 31, 2014.

Investment activities

We evaluate investments in Agency RMBS using factors including expected future prepayment trends, supply of and demand for Agency RMBS, costs of financing, costs of hedging, expected future interest rate volatility and the overall shape of the U.S. Treasury and interest rate swap yield curves. Prepayment speeds, as reflected by the CPR, and interest rates vary according to the type of investment, conditions in financial markets and other factors, none of which can be predicted with any certainty. In general, as prepayment speeds on our Agency RMBS portfolio increase, the related purchase premium amortization increases, thereby reducing the net yield on such assets.

Our credit investments are subject to risk of loss with regard to principal and interest payments. We evaluate each investment in our credit portfolio based on the characteristics of the underlying collateral and the securitization structure. We maintain a comprehensive portfolio management process that generally includes day-to-day oversight by the portfolio management team and a quarterly credit review process for each investment that examines the need for a potential reduction in accretable yield, missed or late contractual payments, significant declines in collateral performance, prepayments, projected defaults, loss severities and other data which may indicate a potential issue in our ability to recover our capital from the investment. These processes are designed to enable our Manager to evaluate and proactively manage asset-specific credit issues and identify credit trends on a portfolio-wide basis. Nevertheless, we cannot be certain that our review will identify all issues within our portfolio due to, among other things, adverse economic conditions or events adversely affecting specific assets. Therefore, potential future losses may stem from issues with our investments that are not identified by our credit reviews.

For the period from our IPO to December 31, 2011, the risk-reward profile of investment opportunities supported the deployment of a majority of our capital in Agency RMBS. Labor, housing and economic fundamentals, together with U.S. monetary policy designed to keep interest rates low, supported our Agency RMBS investments in this period. Overweighting of these investments was also favored by the relative ease of funding and superior liquidity. We also acquired a limited amount of Non-Agency RMBS, ABS and CMBS assets for our investment portfolio during this period.

In 2012, we began increasing our exposure to credit investments and leveraging the broader Angelo, Gordon platform. Throughout the first quarter of 2013, we remained positioned in Agency RMBS assets that we believed would perform well in an ongoing elevated prepayment environment. During the second quarter of 2013, we elected to increase our hedging activity, perceiving the potential for an increase in interest rate volatility and benchmark interest rates. We subsequently reduced our hedging activity, rotated into shorter duration Agency RMBS and continued rotating assets away from Agency RMBS into credit investments, basing our decisions on a variety of factors, including liquidity, duration, interest rate expectations and hedging. Our investment decisions supported the continued allocation into credit assets throughout 2015 and 2016. This shift has caused a change in the mix of our assets, and as a result, our portfolio has decreased over time.

As of December 31, 2016, we had a $2.4 billion GAAP investment portfolio, which consisted of $1.1 billion, or 43.5%, of assets in our GAAP Agency RMBS portfolio and $1.3 billion, or 56.5%, of assets in our GAAP credit portfolio. As of December 31, 2016, our investment portfolio totaled $2.5 billion, which consisted of $1.1 billion, or 43.5%, of assets in our Agency RMBS portfolio and $1.4 billion, or 56.5%, of assets in our credit portfolio. This compares with a $2.8 billion GAAP investment portfolio as of December 31, 2015, which consisted of $1.2 billion, or 43.4%, of assets in our GAAP Agency RMBS portfolio and $1.6 billion, or 56.6%, of assets in our GAAP credit portfolio. As of December 31, 2015, our investment portfolio was $2.9 billion, which consisted of $1.3 billion, or 44.2%, of assets in our Agency RMBS portfolio and $1.6 billion, or 55.8%, of assets in our credit portfolio.

The following table presents a reconciliation of our investment portfolio to our GAAP investment portfolio as of December 31, 2016:

(1) Equity residuals, principal only securities and MSRs with a zero coupon rate are excluded from this calculation.

(2) Fixed Rate 30 Year TBA are excluded from this calculation.

(3) Represents long positions in Fixed Rate 30 Year TBA.

(4) Non-Agency RMBS with credit scores above 700, between 700 and 620 and below 620 at origination are classified as Prime, Alt-A, and Subprime, respectively. The weighted average credit scores of our Prime, Alt-A and Subprime Non-Agency RMBS were 725, 667 and 603, respectively.

(5) Included in Prime is $164.7 million fair market value of new issue securities. New issue is defined as being issued after 2010. Included in new issue prime is $71.3 million fair market value of Prime Jumbo securities. We define Prime Jumbo Securities as a prime security with an issuance year after 2010, an original rating of AAA and a weighted average original loan balance greater than the conforming loan limits published by the FHFA.

(6) Included in Alt-A is $48.7 million fair market value of new issue securities. New issue is defined as being issued after 2010.

(7) Included in Subprime is $35.0 million fair market value of new issue securities. New issue is defined as being issued after 2010.

(8) RPL/NPL MBS are collateralized by re-performing or non-performing loans whose deal structures contain an interest rate step-up feature.

(9) Whole loans purchased by an affiliate of our manager in securitized form.

(10) Actual maturities of investments and loans are generally shorter than stated contractual maturities. Maturities are affected by the contractual lives of the underlying mortgages, periodic payments of principal and prepayments of principal.

(11) Includes Freddie Mac K-Series CMBS interest-only bonds.

The following table presents a reconciliation of our investment portfolio to our GAAP investment portfolio as of December 31, 2015: