Ellington Financial Inc. - Annual Report: 2010 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

OR

Commission file number 001-34569

Ellington Financial LLC

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(203) 698-1200

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  ¨    No  ¨

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

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. Check one:

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

As of October 8, 2010, the day that trading in the registrant’s common shares representing limited liability company interests, no par value (“common shares”), commenced on the New York Stock Exchange, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common shares held by non-affiliates was $302,048,775 based on the closing price as reported on the New York Stock Exchange on that date.

Number of the registrant’s common shares outstanding as of March 15, 2011: 16,504,742

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement with respect to its 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed not later than 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof as noted therein.

Table of Contents

ELLINGTON FINANCIAL LLC

INDEX

Table of Contents

PART I

Except where the context suggests otherwise, “EFC,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Ellington Financial LLC and its subsidiaries, our “Manager” refers to Ellington Financial Management LLC, our external manager, and “Ellington” refers to Ellington Management Group, L.L.C. and its affiliated investment advisory firms, including our Manager, and “Manager Group” refers collectively to Ellington and its principals (including family trusts established by the foregoing) and entities in which 100% of the interests are beneficially owned by the foregoing. In certain instances, references to our Manager and services to be provided to us by our Manager may also include services provided by Ellington and its other affiliates from time to time.

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

When used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, in future filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or in press releases or other written or oral communications, statements which are not historical in nature, including those containing words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “plan,” “continue,” “intend,” “should,” “may” or similar expressions, are intended to identify “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and, as such, may involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions.

Forward-looking statements are based on our beliefs, assumptions and expectations of our future performance, taking into account all information currently available to us. These beliefs, assumptions and expectations are subject to risks and uncertainties and can change as a result of many possible events or factors, not all of which are known to us. If a change occurs, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations may vary materially from those expressed in our forward-looking statements. The following factors are examples of those that could cause actual results to vary from our forward-looking statements: changes in interest rates and the market value of our securities; changes in the prepayment rates on the mortgage loans underlying our agency securities; our ability to borrow to finance our assets; changes in government regulations affecting our business; our ability to maintain our exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”); and risks associated with investing in real estate assets, including changes in business conditions and the general economy. These and other risks, uncertainties and factors, including the risk factors described under Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, could cause our actual results to differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statements we make. All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which they are made. New risks and uncertainties arise over time and it is not possible 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.

Our Company

Ellington Financial LLC is a specialty finance company formed in August 2007 that specializes in acquiring and managing mortgage-related assets. Our primary objective is to generate attractive, risk-adjusted total returns for our shareholders by making investments that we believe compensate us appropriately for the risks associated with them. We seek to attain this objective by utilizing an opportunistic strategy. Our targeted assets currently include:

1

Table of Contents

We also may opportunistically acquire and manage other types of mortgage-related assets and financial assets, such as residential whole mortgage loans, asset-backed securities, or “ABS”, backed by consumer and commercial assets and non-mortgage-related derivatives.

We believe that we have been organized and have operated so that we have qualified, and will continue to qualify, to be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a partnership and not as an association or a publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation.

Our Manager and Ellington

We are externally managed and advised by our Manager, an affiliate of Ellington, pursuant to a management agreement. Our Manager was formed solely to serve as our manager and does not have any other clients. In addition, our Manager currently does not have any employees and instead relies on the employees of Ellington to perform its obligations to us. Ellington is an investment management firm and registered investment advisor with a 16-year history of investing in a broad spectrum of mortgage-backed securities, or “MBS”, and related derivatives.

The members of our management team include Michael Vranos, founder and Chief Executive Officer of Ellington, who serves as our Co-Chief Investment Officer and a member of our Board of Directors, Laurence Penn, Vice Chairman of Ellington, who serves as our Chief Executive Officer and President and a member of our Board of Directors, Mark Tecotzky, a Managing Director of Ellington, who serves as our Co-Chief Investment Officer, Lisa Mumford, who serves as our dedicated Chief Financial Officer, and Daniel Margolis, General Counsel of Ellington, who serves as our Secretary. Each of these individuals is an officer of our Manager. We currently do not have any employees.

Our Manager is responsible for administering our business activities and day-to-day operations and, pursuant to a services agreement between our Manager and Ellington, relies on the resources of Ellington to support our operations. Ellington has established portfolio management resources for each of our targeted asset classes and an established infrastructure supporting those resources. Through our relationship with our Manager, we benefit from Ellington’s highly analytical investment processes, broad-based deal flow, extensive relationships in the financial community, financial and capital structuring skills, investment surveillance database and operational expertise. Ellington’s analytic approach to the investment process involves collection of substantial amounts of data regarding historical performance of MBS collateral and MBS market transactions. Ellington analyzes this data to identify possible trends and develops financial models used to support the investment and risk management process. In addition, throughout Ellington’s 16-year history of investing in MBS and related derivatives, it has developed strong relationships with a wide range of dealers and other market participants that provide Ellington access to a broad range of trading opportunities and market information. In addition, our Manager provides us with access to a wide variety of asset acquisition and disposition opportunities and information that assist us in making asset management decisions across our targeted asset classes, which we believe provides us with a significant competitive advantage. We also benefit from Ellington’s finance, accounting, operational, legal, compliance and administrative functions.

As of December 31, 2010, Ellington employed over 100 employees and had net assets under management of approximately $3.6 billion of which approximately $2.9 billion comprised our company and various alternative investment vehicles, including hedge funds and various private accounts, and of which approximately $0.7 billion comprised accounts with more traditional mandates. In addition, Ellington, through its affiliates, manages collateralized debt obligations, or “CDOs”, collateralized by MBS or ABS.

2

Table of Contents

Our Strategy

We utilize an opportunistic strategy to seek to provide investors with attractive, risk-adjusted total returns by:

Our strategy is adaptable to changing market environments, subject to compliance with the income and other tests that will allow us to continue to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes and to maintain our exclusion from regulation as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. As a result, although we focus on the assets described above, our acquisition and management decisions depend on prevailing market conditions and our targeted asset classes may vary over time in response to market conditions. We may engage in a high degree of trading volume as we implement our strategy. Our Manager is authorized to follow very broad investment guidelines and, as a result, we cannot predict our portfolio composition. We may change our strategy and policies without a vote of our shareholders. Moreover, although our independent directors periodically review our investment guidelines and our portfolio, they generally do not review our proposed asset acquisitions or asset management decisions.

Ellington’s investment philosophy revolves around the pursuit of value across various types of MBS and related assets. Ellington seeks investments across a wide range of MBS sectors without any restriction as to ratings, structure or position in the capital structure. Over time and through market cycles, opportunities will present themselves in varying sectors and in varying forms. For example, in the wake of the financial crisis, the liquidations of portfolios of MBS from structured vehicles and from distressed financial institutions have been significant sources of asset acquisition opportunities. By rotating between and allocating among various sectors of the MBS markets and adjusting the extent to which it hedges, Ellington believes that it is able to capitalize on the disparities between these sectors as well as on overall trends in the marketplace, and therefore provide better and more consistent returns for its investors. Disparities between MBS sectors vary from time to time and are driven by a combination of factors. For example, as various MBS sectors fall in and out of favor, the relative yields that the market demands for those sectors may vary. In addition, Ellington’s performance projections for certain sectors may differ from those of other market participants and such disparities will naturally cause us, from time to time, to gravitate towards certain sectors and away from others. Disparities between MBS sectors may also be driven by differences in collateral performance (for example, seasoned subprime collateral may perform better than more recent subprime collateral) and in the structure of particular investments (for example, in the timing of cash flow or the level of credit enhancement), and our Manager may believe that other market participants are overestimating or underestimating the value of these differences. Furthermore, we believe that risk management, including opportunistic portfolio hedging and prudent financing and liquidity management, is essential for consistent generation of attractive, risk-adjusted total returns across market cycles.

Ellington’s continued emphasis on and development of proprietary MBS credit, interest rate and prepayment models, as well as other proprietary research and analytics, underscores the importance it places on a disciplined

3

Table of Contents

and analytical approach to fixed income investing, especially in MBS. Our Manager uses Ellington’s proprietary models to identify attractive assets, value these assets, monitor and forecast the performance of these assets, and opportunistically hedge our credit and interest rate risk. We leverage these skills and resources to seek to meet our objectives.

We believe that our Manager is uniquely qualified to implement our strategy. Our strategy is consistent with Ellington’s investment approach, which is based on its distinctive strengths in sourcing, analyzing, trading and hedging complex MBS. Furthermore, we believe that Ellington’s extensive experience in buying, selling, analyzing and structuring fixed income securities, coupled with its broad access to market information and trading flows, provides us with a steady flow of opportunities to acquire assets with favorable trade executions.

We also employ a wide variety of hedging instruments and derivative contracts. See “—Risk Management.”

Our Targeted Asset Classes

Our targeted asset classes currently include:

4

Table of Contents

The following briefly discusses the principal types of assets we purchase.

Non-Agency RMBS

We acquire non-Agency RMBS backed by prime jumbo, Alt-A, and subprime residential mortgage loans. Our non-Agency RMBS holdings can include investment-grade and non-investment grade classes, including the BB-rated, B-rated and non-rated classes.

Non-Agency RMBS are debt obligations issued by private originators of or investors in residential mortgage loans. Non-Agency RMBS generally are issued as collateralized mortgage obligations, or “CMOs”, and are backed by pools of whole mortgage loans or by mortgage pass-through certificates. Non-Agency RMBS generally are securitized in senior/subordinated structures, or in excess spread/over-collateralization structures. In senior/subordinated structures, the subordinated tranches generally absorb all losses on the underlying mortgage loans before any losses are borne by the senior tranches. In excess spread/over-collateralization structures, losses are first absorbed by any existing over-collateralization, then borne by subordinated tranches and excess spread, which represents the difference between the interest payments received on the mortgage loans backing the RMBS and the interest due on the RMBS debt tranches, and finally by senior tranches and any remaining excess spread.

Agency RMBS

Our assets in this asset class consist primarily of whole pool pass-through certificates, the principal and interest of which are guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae and which are backed by ARMs, hybrid ARMs or fixed-rate mortgages. Mortgage pass-through certificates are securities representing undivided interests in “pools” of mortgage loans secured by real property where payments of both interest and principal, plus pre-paid principal, on the securities are made monthly to holders of the security, in effect “passing through” monthly payments made by the individual borrowers on the mortgage loans that underlie the securities, net of fees paid to the issuer/guarantor and servicers of the securities. Whole pool pass-through certificates are mortgage pass-through certificates that represent the entire ownership of (as opposed to merely a partial undivided interest in) a pool of mortgage loans.

TBAs

In addition to investing in specific pools of Agency RMBS, we utilize forward-settling purchases and sales of Agency RMBS where the underlying pools of mortgage loans are TBAs. Pursuant to these TBA transactions, we agree to purchase or sell, for future delivery, Agency RMBS with certain principal and interest terms and certain types of underlying collateral, but the particular Agency RMBS to be delivered is not identified until shortly before the TBA settlement date. TBAs are liquid and have quoted market prices and represent the most actively traded class of MBS. We use TBAs primarily for hedging purposes. TBA trading is based on the assumption that mortgage pools that are eligible to be delivered at TBA settlement are fungible and thus the specific mortgage pools to be delivered do not need to be explicitly identified at the time a trade is initiated.

We primarily engage in TBA transactions for purposes of managing certain risks associated with our long Agency RMBS and, to a lesser extent, our non-Agency RMBS. The principal risks that we use TBAs to mitigate are interest rate and yield spread risks. For example, we may hedge the interest rate and/or yield spread risk inherent in our long Agency RMBS by taking short positions in TBAs that are similar in character. Alternatively, we may engage in TBA transactions because we find them attractive on their own, from a relative value perspective or otherwise.

5

Table of Contents

Mortgage-Related Derivatives

We take long and short positions in various mortgage-related derivative instruments, including credit default swaps. A credit default swap is a credit derivative contract in which one party (protection buyer) pays an ongoing periodic premium (and often an upfront payment as well) to another party (protection seller) in return for compensation for default (or similar credit event) by a reference entity. In this case, the reference entity can be an asset-backed security or an index of several ABS, such as an ABX Index, PrimeX or a CMBX Index. Payments from protection seller to protection buyer typically occur if a credit event takes place; a credit event may be triggered by, among other things, the reference entity’s failure to pay its principal obligations or a severe ratings downgrade of the reference entity.

CMBS

CMBS are mortgage-backed securities collateralized by loans on commercial properties. The majority of CMBS issued are fixed rate securities backed by fixed rate loans made to multiple borrowers on a variety of property types, though single-borrower CMBS and floating-rate CMBS have also been issued.

The majority of CMBS utilize senior/subordinate structures, similar to those found in non-Agency RMBS. Subordination levels vary so as to provide for one or more AAA credit ratings on the most senior classes, with less senior securities rated investment grade and non-investment grade, including a first loss component which is typically unrated.

Commercial Mortgage Loans and Other Commercial Real Estate Debt

Commercial mortgage loans are loans secured by liens on commercial properties, including retail, office, industrial, hotel and multifamily properties. Loans may be fixed or floating rate and will generally range from two to ten years. Commercial real estate debt typically limits the borrower’s right to freely prepay for a period of time through provisions such as prepayment fees, lockout, yield maintenance or defeasance provisions.

First lien loans may be structured as whole loans, or alternatively bifurcated into a senior participation interest (“A-Note”) and a subordinated participation interest (“B-Note”). The rights of an A-Note or B-Note holder are typically governed by an intercreditor agreement which sets forth the respective rights and obligations of the holders, with the B-Note’s entitlement to principal and interest subordinated to that of the A-Note.

A subordinate loan may be structured simply as a second mortgage, or alternatively as a mezzanine loan, which is a loan secured by the pledge of the borrower’s ownership interests in the property, and therefore subordinate to any mortgage loan but senior to the borrower’s equity in the property. An intercreditor agreement typically governs the rights of a second mortgage or mezzanine loan relative to a first mortgage loan, with the second mortgage loan’s or mezzanine loan’s entitlement to interest and principal subordinated to that of the first mortgage loan.

Commercial real estate loans may also be structured into more complicated senior/subordinate structures, including those providing for multiple B-Note or multiple mezzanine loan senior/subordinate components. A loan or a component of a loan may have only one lender, or pari passu participation interests may be issued to multiple lenders. Loans are generally privately negotiated, and so structures can vary based on the specific facts and circumstances relating to the loan, property and borrower, among other things.

Commercial mortgage loans are sometimes made for the acquisition, renovation or redevelopment of a property. These loans are typically shorter term loans, or bridge loans.

6

Table of Contents

Corporate Debt and Equity Securities and Derivatives

For hedging purposes, we take short positions in corporate debt and equity (including indices on corporate debt and equity) by entering into derivative contracts such as credit default swaps, total return swaps and options. These are generally not hedges against risks that are directly related to specific corporate entities. Rather, these hedges reference corporations (such as financial institutions that have substantial mortgage-related exposure) or indices whose performance we believe may have a reasonable degree of correlation with the performance of our portfolio. Given this correlation, a short position with respect to such corporations or indices provides a hedge to our portfolio of MBS as a whole.

A credit default swap is a derivative contract in which one party (protection buyer) pays an ongoing periodic premium (and often an upfront payment as well) to another party (protection seller) in return for compensation upon the occurrence of a credit event with respect to the corporation or index referenced by such derivative contract. A credit event relating to a credit default swap on an individual corporation or an index of corporate names would typically be triggered by a corporation’s bankruptcy or failure to make scheduled payments in respect of debt obligations. A total return swap is a derivative whereby one party makes payments to the other representing the total return on a reference debt or equity security (or index of debt or equity securities) in exchange for an agreed upon ongoing periodic premium. An equity option is a derivative that gives the holder the option to buy or sell an equity security or index of securities at a predetermined price within a certain time period. The option may reference the equity of a publicly traded company or an equity index. In addition to general market risk, our derivatives on corporate debt and equity securities are subject to risks related to the underlying corporate entities.

Other Assets

We also may from time to time opportunistically acquire other mortgage-related and financial assets that may include, among others: residential whole mortgage loans and ABS backed by consumer and commercial assets.

Our Portfolio

As of December 31, 2010, our investment portfolio consisted of the following assets:

7

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2010, our derivatives portfolio consisted of the following:

The table below shows the credit rating categories from Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s or Fitch Rating Ltd., for our long MBS portfolio as of December 31, 2010, excluding IOs and residual certificates but including our long investments that were unrated but affiliated with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae, including TBAs. Ratings tend to be a lagging credit indicator; as a result, the credit quality of our long investment holdings may be lower than the credit quality implied based on the ratings listed below. In situations where an investment has a split rating, the lowest provided rating is used.

Investment Process

Our investment process benefits from the resources and professionals of our Manager and Ellington. The process is managed by an investment and risk management committee, which includes the following three officers of our Manager: Messrs. Vranos, Penn, and Tecotzky. These officers of our Manager also serve as our Co-Chief Investment Officer; Chief Executive Officer; and Co-Chief Investment Officer, respectively. The investment and risk management committee operates under investment guidelines and meets periodically to

8

Table of Contents

develop a set of preferences for sectors and sub-sectors. The primary focus of the investment and risk management committee is to review and approve our investment policies and our portfolio holdings and related compliance with our investment policies and guidelines. Our investment and risk management committee has authority delegated by our board to authorize transactions consistent with our investment guidelines. Any transactions deviating in a material way from these guidelines must be approved by our board.

Ellington has a focused investment team for each of our targeted asset classes. Each team evaluates acquisition opportunities consistent with the guidelines developed and maintained by our Manager’s investment and risk management committee. Our asset acquisition process includes sourcing and screening of asset acquisition opportunities, credit analysis, due diligence, structuring, financing and hedging, each as appropriate, to seek attractive total returns commensurate with our risk tolerance. We also screen and monitor all potential assets to determine their impact on maintaining our exclusion from regulation as an investment company under the Investment Company Act and our qualification as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Asset Surveillance

Our asset surveillance process benefits from the resources and professionals of our Manager and Ellington. Ellington performs security- and loan-level analysis of its holdings on a periodic and ongoing basis by assessing collateral performance data, evaluating future expected performance, and observing market expectations. Such surveillance capabilities help identify securities or sectors that are performing anomalously. In addition, Ellington analyzes the collateral performance of a broad range of securities that it does not hold in order to monitor emerging trends across asset classes. For instance, Ellington performs surveillance on representative samples of actively traded securities, covering most residential MBS sectors and vintages. On a monthly basis, Ellington gathers data on each such representative sample from its third-party data providers, and produces detailed reports based on loan level information, including analyses of prepayment rates, flow rates, severities, delinquencies and loan modification effects. This process offers Ellington’s trading and surveillance personnel additional insight into the Company’s portfolio and potential asset acquisition opportunities. We believe that Ellington’s surveillance capabilities provide it with a substantial advantage over most other market participants, and present a formidable barrier to entry for potential competitors.

Risk Management

Risk management is a cornerstone of Ellington’s portfolio management process. Ellington’s risk management infrastructure system includes “ELLiN,” a proprietary portfolio management system that Ellington uses for all of its accounts, which provides real time and batch reporting to all departments at Ellington, including trading, research, risk management, finance, operations, accounting, and compliance. We benefit from Ellington’s comprehensive risk management infrastructure and ongoing assessment of both portfolio and operational risks. In addition, we utilize derivatives and other hedging instruments to opportunistically hedge our credit and interest rate risk.

Credit Risk Hedging

We enter into short positions using credit default swaps to protect against adverse credit events with respect to our non-Agency MBS. We may use credit default swaps to hedge non-Agency MBS credit risk by buying protection on a single non-Agency MBS or by buying protection on a basket of non-Agency MBS assets. We may also enter into credit default swaps on the ABX index, PrimeX or CMBX index. We also enter into derivative contracts for hedging purposes referencing the unsecured corporate credit, or the equity of, certain corporations.

9

Table of Contents

Interest Rate Hedging

We opportunistically hedge our interest rate risk by using various hedging strategies to mitigate such risks. The interest rate hedging instruments that we use and may use in the future include, without limitation:

In particular, from time to time we enter into short positions in interest rate swaps to offset the potential adverse effects that changes in interest rates will have on the value of certain of our assets and our financing costs. An interest rate swap is an agreement to exchange interest rate cash flows, calculated on a notional principal amount, at specified payment dates during the life of the agreement. Typically one party pays a fixed interest rate and receives a floating interest rate and the other party pays a floating interest rate and receives a fixed interest rate. Each party’s payment obligation is computed using a different interest rate. In an interest rate swap, the notional principal is never exchanged.

Liquidity Management

As part of the risk management and liquidity management functions that our Manager performs for us, our Manager computes a “cash buffer” which at any given point in time represents the amount of our free cash in excess of what our Manager estimates would conservatively be required, especially in times of market dislocation, to support our particular assets and liabilities at such time. Thus, rather than focusing solely on our leverage, our Manager typically seeks to maintain a positive cash buffer.

Our Financing Strategies and Use of Leverage

We finance our assets with what we believe to be a prudent amount of leverage, the level of which varies from time to time based upon the particular characteristics of our portfolio, availability of financing and market conditions. Our debt financings currently consist solely of reverse repos. Currently, the majority of our reverse repo borrowings are collateralized by Agency RMBS; however, as the environment for stable and reliable reverse repo financing for non-Agency RMBS continues to improve, we have increased our reverse repo borrowings that are collateralized by non-Agency RMBS. In a reverse repo, we sell an asset to a counterparty at a discounted value, or the loan amount, and simultaneously agree to repurchase the same asset from such counterparty at a price equal to the loan amount plus an interest factor. Despite being legally structured as sales and subsequent repurchases, reverse repos are generally accounted for as debt secured by the underlying assets. During the term of a reverse repo, we generally receive the income and other payments distributed with respect to the underlying assets, and pay interest to the counterparty. While the proceeds of our reverse repo financings are often used to purchase the assets subject to the repo, our financing arrangements do not restrict our ability to use proceeds from these arrangements to support our other liquidity needs. Our reverse repo arrangements are typically documented under SIFMA’s standard form Master Repurchase Agreement, with the ability for both parties to request margin. Given daily market volatility, we and our repo counterparties are required to post additional margin collateral to each other from time to time as part of the normal course of our business. Our reverse repo financing counterparties generally have the right to determine the value of the underlying collateral for margining purposes, subject to the terms and conditions of our agreement with the counterparty. As of December 31, 2010, we had approximately $777.8 million outstanding on reverse repos with seven counterparties. These borrowings

10

Table of Contents

were the only debt financings we had outstanding as of December 31, 2010, and, given that we had approximately $403.7 million of shareholders’ equity as of December 31, 2010, our debt-to-equity ratio was 1.93 to 1. Our debt-to-equity ratio does not account for liabilities other than debt financings.

We may utilize other types of borrowings in the future, including term facilities or other more complex financing structures. Additionally, we may also take advantage of available borrowings, if any, under financing programs established from time to time by the Federal Government. We also may raise capital by issuing unsecured debt, preferred or common shares, or trust preferred securities.

Our use of leverage, especially in order to increase the amount of assets supported by our capital base, may have the effect of increasing losses when these assets underperform. Our investment policies require no minimum or maximum leverage and our Manager’s investment and risk management committee will have the discretion, without the need for further approval by our Board of Directors, to change both our overall leverage and the leverage used for individual asset classes. Because our strategy is flexible, dynamic and opportunistic, our overall leverage will vary over time. As a result, we do not have a targeted debt-to-equity ratio.

Management Agreement

We entered into a management agreement with our Manager upon our inception in August 2007, pursuant to which our Manager provides for the day-to-day management of our operations.

The management agreement, which was amended and restated effective July 1, 2009 and again effective October 1, 2010, requires our Manager to manage our assets, operations and affairs in conformity with the policies and the investment guidelines that are approved and monitored by our Board of Directors. Our Manager is under the supervision and direction of our Board of Directors. Our Manager is responsible for:

Our Manager is responsible for our day-to-day operations and performs (or causes to be performed) such services and activities relating to the management, operation and administration of our assets and liabilities and business as may be appropriate.

Under the management agreement, we pay our Manager a management fee quarterly in arrears, which includes a “base” component and an “incentive” component, and we reimburse certain expenses of our Manager.

Base Management Fees, Incentive Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses

Base Management Fees

Under the management agreement, we pay our Manager a base management fee quarterly in arrears in an amount equal to 1.50% per annum of our shareholders’ equity (calculated in accordance with GAAP) as of the end of each fiscal quarter (before deductions for base management fees and incentive fees payable with respect to such fiscal quarter), provided that shareholders’ equity will be adjusted to exclude one-time events pursuant to changes in GAAP, as well as non-cash charges after discussion between our Manager and our independent directors and approval by a majority of our independent directors in the case of non-cash charges.

11

Table of Contents

In the event that our Manager, Ellington or any of their affiliates receives any management fees, origination fees or structuring fees from any CDO, investment fund, issuer of debt or other investment in which our company has invested or participated, then the quarterly base management fees and any incentive fees payable by us to our Manager will be reduced by, or our Manager will otherwise rebate to us, an amount equal to the portion of such fees payable to our Manager, Ellington or their affiliates that is allocable to our investment or participating interest in such CDO, investment fund, other investment or debt securities during the same period.

Incentive Fees

In addition to the base management fee, with respect to each fiscal quarter we pay our Manager an incentive fee equal to the excess, if any, of (i) the product of (A) 25% and (B) the excess of (1) our Adjusted Net Income (described below) for the Incentive Calculation Period (which means such fiscal quarter and the immediately preceding three fiscal quarters) over (2) the sum of the Hurdle Amounts (described below) for the Incentive Calculation Period, over (ii) the sum of the incentive fees already paid or payable for each fiscal quarter in the Incentive Calculation Period preceding such fiscal quarter.

For purposes of calculating the incentive fee, “Adjusted Net Income” for the Incentive Calculation Period means our net increase in shareholders’ equity from operations (or such equivalent GAAP measure based on the basis of presentation of our consolidated financial statements), after all base management fees but before any incentive fees for such period, and excluding any non-cash equity compensation expenses for such period, as reduced by any Loss Carryforward (as described below) as of the end of the fiscal quarter preceding the Incentive Calculation Period. Adjusted Net Income will be adjusted to exclude one-time events pursuant to changes in GAAP, as well as non-cash charges after discussion between our Manager and our independent directors and approval by a majority of our independent directors in the case of non-cash charges. For the avoidance of doubt, Adjusted Net Income includes both net investment income and net realized and unrealized gains and losses.

For purposes of calculating the incentive fee, the “Loss Carryforward” as of the end of any fiscal quarter is calculated by determining the excess, if any, of (1) the Loss Carryforward as of the end of the immediately preceding fiscal quarter over (2) our net increase in shareholders’ equity from operations (expressed as a positive number) or net decrease in shareholders’ equity from operations (expressed as a negative number) for such fiscal quarter (or such equivalent GAAP measures as may be appropriate depending on the basis of presentation of our consolidated financial statements), as the case may be, calculated in accordance with GAAP, adjusted to exclude one-time events pursuant to changes in GAAP, as well as non-cash charges after discussion between our Manager and our independent directors and approval by a majority of our independent directors in the case of non-cash charges.

For purposes of calculating the incentive fee, the “Hurdle Amount” means, with respect to any fiscal quarter, the product of (i) one-fourth of the greater of (A) 9% and (B) 3% plus the ten-year Treasury rate for such fiscal quarter, (ii) the sum of (A) the weighted average gross proceeds per share of all our common share issuances (excluding issuances of our common shares (a) as equity incentive awards, (b) to our Manager as part of its base management fee or incentive fee and (c) to our Manager or any of its Affiliates in privately negotiated transactions) up to the end of such fiscal quarter (with each such issuance weighted by both the number of shares issued in such issuance and the number of days that such issued shares were outstanding during such fiscal quarter) and (B) the result obtained by dividing (I) retained earnings attributable to our common shares at the beginning of such fiscal quarter by (II) the average number of our common shares outstanding for each day during such fiscal quarter, and (iii) the average number of our common shares and LTIP units outstanding for each day during such fiscal quarter.

The management agreement provides that 10% of each incentive fee payable to our Manager is to be paid in common shares, with the balance paid in cash; provided, however, that our Manager may, in its sole discretion, elect to receive a greater percentage of any incentive fee in the form of common shares by providing our Board of Directors with written notice of its election to receive a greater percentage of its incentive fee in common

12

Table of Contents

shares before the first day of the last calendar month in the quarter to which such incentive fee relates. Our management agreement further provides that our Manager may not elect to receive common shares as payment of its incentive fee, other than in accordance with all applicable securities exchange rules and securities laws (including prohibitions on insider trading). The number of our common shares to be received by our Manager is based on the fair market value of those common shares, which is determined based on the average of the closing prices of our common shares on the NYSE during the last calendar month of the quarter to which such incentive fee relates. Common shares delivered as payment of the incentive fee are immediately vested, provided that our Manager has agreed not to sell the common shares prior to one year after the date they are issued to our Manager, however, the transfer restriction will lapse if the management agreement is terminated.

Reimbursement of Expenses

We do not maintain an office or employ personnel. We rely on the facilities and resources of our Manager to conduct our operations. We pay all of our direct operating expenses, except those specifically required to be borne by our Manager under the management agreement. Our Manager is responsible for all costs incident to the performance of its duties under the management agreement, including compensation of our Manager’s employees and other related expenses, other than the costs incurred by our Manager for a dedicated Chief Financial Officer and dedicated controller and, if provided by our Manager, an in-house legal counsel (provided that the costs for any time spent by such in-house legal counsel on matters unrelated to the Company will not be borne by the Company). In addition, other than as expressly described in the management agreement, we are not required to pay any portion of rent, telephone, utilities, office furniture, equipment, machinery and other office, internal and overhead expenses of our Manager and its affiliates. Expense reimbursements to our Manager are made within 60 days following delivery of the expense statement by our Manager.

Term and Termination

The management agreement has a current term that expires on December 31, 2011, and will automatically renew for a one year term each anniversary date thereafter unless notice of non-renewal is delivered by either party to the other party at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the then current term. Our independent directors will review our Manager’s performance annually and the management agreement may be terminated annually upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors, or by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least a majority of the outstanding common shares, based upon unsatisfactory performance that is materially detrimental to us or a determination by our independent directors that the base management and incentive fees payable to our Manager are not fair, subject to our Manager’s right to prevent such a compensation termination by accepting a mutually acceptable reduction of management fees. In the event we terminate the management agreement without cause or elect not to renew the management agreement, we will be required to pay our Manager a termination fee equal to the amount of three times the sum of (i) the average annual base management fee earned by our Manager during the 24-month period immediately preceding the date of termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter prior to the date of termination and (ii) the average annual incentive fee earned by our Manager during the 24-month period immediately preceding the date of termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter prior to the date of termination.

We may also terminate the management agreement without payment of the termination fee with 30 days prior written notice from our Board of Directors for cause, which is defined as:

13

Table of Contents

Our Manager may terminate the management agreement effective upon 60 days’ prior written notice of termination to us in the event that we default in the performance or observance of any material term, condition or covenant in the management agreement and the default continues for a period of 30 days after written notice to us specifying the default and requesting that the default be remedied in such 30-day period. In the event our Manager terminates the management agreement due to our default in the performance or observance of any material term, condition or covenant in the management agreement, we will be required to pay our Manager the termination fee. Our Manager may also terminate the management agreement in the event we become regulated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, with such termination deemed to occur immediately prior to such event; provided, however, that in the case of such termination, if our Manager was not at fault for our becoming regulated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we will be required to pay a termination fee.

Conflicts of Interest; Equitable Allocation of Opportunities

Ellington manages, and expects to continue to manage, other funds, accounts and vehicles that have strategies that are similar to, or that overlap with, our strategy. As of December 31, 2010, Ellington managed various funds, accounts and other vehicles that have strategies that are similar to, or that overlap with, our strategy, that have aggregate net assets of approximately $3.0 billion (excluding our assets but including $0.7 billion of accounts with more traditional mandates). Ellington makes available to our Manager all opportunities to acquire assets that it determines, in its reasonable and good faith judgment, based on our objectives, policies and strategies, and other relevant factors, are appropriate for us in accordance with Ellington’s written investment allocation policy, subject to the exception that we might not participate in each such opportunity, but will on an overall basis equitably participate with Ellington’s other accounts in all such opportunities. Ellington’s investment and risk management committee and its compliance committee (headed by its Chief Compliance Officer) are responsible for monitoring the administration of, and facilitating compliance with, Ellington’s investment allocation procedures and policies.

Because many of our targeted assets are typically available only in specified quantities and because many of our targeted assets are also targeted assets for other Ellington accounts, Ellington often is not able to buy as much of any given asset as required to satisfy the needs of all its accounts. In these cases, Ellington’s investment allocation procedures and policies typically allocate such assets to multiple accounts in proportion to their needs and available capital. As a result, accounts in start-up mode are given priority. The policies permit departure from such proportional allocation when such allocation would result in an inefficiently small amount of the security being purchased for an account. In that case, the policy allows for a protocol of allocating assets so that, on an overall basis, each account is treated equitably.

Other policies of Ellington that our Manager applies to the management of our company include controls for:

14

Table of Contents

To date, we have not entered into any cross transactions with other Ellington-managed accounts or principal transactions with Ellington, or invested in other Ellington accounts.

Our Manager is authorized to follow very broad investment guidelines. Our independent directors will periodically review our investment guidelines and our portfolio. However, our independent directors generally will not review our proposed asset acquisitions, dispositions or other management decisions. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, the independent directors will rely primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Furthermore, our Manager may arrange for us to use complex strategies or to enter into complex transactions that may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our Board of Directors. Our Manager has great latitude within our broad investment guidelines to determine the types of assets it may decide are proper for purchase by us. The management agreement with our Manager does not restrict the ability of its officers and employees from engaging in other business ventures of any nature, whether or not such ventures are competitive with our business. We may acquire assets from entities affiliated with our Manager, even where the assets were originated by such entities. Affiliates of our Manager may also provide services to entities in which we have invested.

Our executive officers and the officers and employees of our Manager are also officers and employees of Ellington, and, with the exception of those officers that are dedicated to us, we compete with other Ellington accounts for access to these individuals. We have not adopted a policy that expressly prohibits our directors, officers, security holders or affiliates from having a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any asset to be acquired or disposed of by us or any of our subsidiaries or in any transaction to which we or any of our subsidiaries is a party or has an interest, nor do we have a policy that expressly prohibits any such persons from

15

Table of Contents

engaging for their own account in business activities of the types conducted by us. However, our code of business conduct and ethics contains a conflicts of interest policy that prohibits our directors, officers and employees, as well as employees of our Manager who provide services to us, from engaging in any transaction that involves an actual or apparent conflict of interest with us, absent approval by the Board of Directors or except as expressly set forth above or as provided in the management agreement between us and our Manager. In addition, nothing in the management agreement binds or restricts our Manager or any of its affiliates, officers or employees from buying, selling or trading any securities or commodities for their own accounts or for the accounts of others for whom our Manager or any of its affiliates, officers or employees may be acting.

Competition

In acquiring our assets, we compete with mortgage REITs, specialty finance companies, savings and loan associations, banks, mortgage bankers, insurance companies, mutual funds, institutional investors, investment banking firms, financial institutions, governmental bodies and other entities. Many of our competitors are significantly larger than us, have greater access to capital and other resources and may have other advantages over us. In addition to existing companies, other companies may be organized for similar purposes, including companies focused on purchasing mortgage assets. A proliferation of such companies may increase the competition for equity capital and thereby adversely affect the market value of our common shares. 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 assets and establish more relationships than us.

Additionally, we may also compete with (i) the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to the extent they purchase assets meeting our objectives pursuant to various purchase programs and (ii) companies that partner with and/or receive financing from the Federal Government, including the Public-Private Investment Program, or “PPIP” participants. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Trends and Recent Market Developments.”

In the face of this competition, we have access to our Manager’s and Ellington’s professionals and their industry expertise, which may provide us with a competitive advantage and help us assess risks and determine appropriate pricing for certain potential assets. In addition, we believe that these relationships enable us to compete more effectively for attractive asset acquisition opportunities. However, we may not be able to achieve our business goals or expectations due to the competitive risks that we face.

Operating and Regulatory Structure

Tax Requirements

We believe that we have been organized and have operated so that we have qualified, and will continue to qualify, to be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a partnership and not as an association or a publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation. In general, an entity that is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes is not subject to U.S. federal income tax at the entity level. Consequently, holders of our common shares will be required to take into account their allocable share of items of our income, gain, loss, deduction and credit for our taxable year ending within or with their taxable year, regardless of whether we make cash distributions on a current basis with which to pay any resulting tax.

We believe that we are treated, and will continue to be treated, as a publicly traded partnership. Publicly traded partnerships are generally treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes as long as they satisfy certain income and other tests on an ongoing basis. We believe that we have satisfied and will continue to satisfy those requirements and that we have been and will continue to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. See “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations” in our IPO prospectus.

16

Table of Contents

Investment Company Act Exclusions

Most of our business is conducted through various wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries in a manner such that neither we nor our subsidiaries are subject to regulation under the Investment Company Act. Under Section 3(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act, a company is deemed to be an “investment company” if:

We believe we will not be considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act because we do not engage primarily or hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Rather, through wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries, we are primarily engaged in the non-investment company businesses of these subsidiaries.

The 40% Test limits the types of businesses in which we may engage either directly or through our subsidiaries. Our wholly-owned subsidiary, EF Mortgage LLC, relies on the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) under the Investment Company Act. It, in turn, has a wholly-owned subsidiary, EF CMO LLC, which invests in mortgage-related securities and relies on Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. EF Mortgage LLC treats its investment in EF CMO LLC as a real estate-related asset for purposes of its own exclusion under Section 3(c)(5)(C). Our other wholly-owned subsidiary, EF Securities LLC, owns securities, including various kinds of mortgage-related securities and relies on the exemption provided by Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act; therefore, we treat securities that we own and that were issued by EF Securities LLC as “investment securities” and are required to keep the value of these securities, together with any other investment securities we own, below 40% of our total assets (excluding U.S. Government securities and cash) on an unconsolidated basis. Any subsidiaries we may form in the future may not be majority-owned or wholly-owned by us or might rely on the exemption provided by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, in which case we would treat securities that we own and that were issued by these types of subsidiaries as “investment securities” and be required to keep the value of these securities, together with the value of our investment in EF Securities LLC and any other investment securities we own, below 40% of our total assets (excluding U.S. Government securities and cash) on an unconsolidated basis. Section 3(c)(5)(C), the Investment Company Act exclusion upon which EF Mortgage LLC relies, is designed for entities “primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” This exclusion generally requires that at least 55% of the entity’s assets consist of qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of the entity’s assets consist of either qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets. Qualifying real estate assets for this purpose include mortgage loans, whole pool Agency pass-through certificates and other assets that the SEC staff has determined in various no-action letters are the functional equivalent of mortgage loans for the purposes of the Investment Company Act. We intend to treat as real estate-related assets RMBS that do not satisfy the conditions set forth in those SEC staff no-action letters. In classifying the assets held by EF Mortgage LLC as qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, we also will rely on any other guidance published by the SEC staff or on our analyses (in consultation with outside counsel) of guidance published with respect to other types of assets to determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets.

Both the 40% Test and the requirements of the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion limit the types of businesses in which we may engage and the types of assets we may hold, as well as the timing of sales and purchases of assets.

17

Table of Contents

There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of companies similar to ours, or the guidance from the Division of Investment Management of the SEC regarding the treatment of assets as qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. To the extent that the SEC staff provides more specific guidance regarding any of the matters bearing upon our exclusion from the need to register under the Investment Company Act, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. Any additional guidance from the SEC staff could provide additional flexibility to us, or it could further inhibit our ability to pursue the strategies that we have chosen. Furthermore, although we intend to monitor the assets of EF Mortgage LLC regularly, there can be no assurance that EF Mortgage LLC will be able to maintain this exclusion from registration. In that case, our investment in EF Mortgage LLC would be classified as an investment security, and we might not be able to maintain our overall exclusion from registering as an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

If we or our subsidiaries were required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to our capital structure (including our ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the Investment Company Act), and portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration and other matters. Compliance with the restrictions imposed by the Investment Company Act would require us to make material changes to our strategy which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders. Accordingly, to avoid that result, we may be required to adjust our strategy, which could limit our ability to make certain investments or require us to sell assets in a manner, at a price or at a time that we otherwise would not have chosen. This could negatively affect the value of our common shares, the sustainability of our business model and our ability to make distributions.

Investment Advisers Act of 1940

Both Ellington and our Manager are registered as investment advisers under the Advisers Act and are subject to the regulatory oversight of the Investment Management Division of the SEC.

Staffing

All of our executive officers, including our dedicated Chief Financial Officer, our controller, and our in-house legal counsel are employees of Ellington or one or more of its affiliates. See “—Management Agreement” above.

Additional Information

A copy of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to such reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available, free of charge, on our internet website at www.ellingtonfinancial.com. All of these reports are made available on our internet website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the charters of the Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees of our Board of Directors are also available at www.ellingtonfinancial.com and are available in print to any shareholder upon request in writing to Ellington Financial LLC, c/o Investor Relations, 53 Forest Avenue, Old Greenwich, CT 06870. The information on our website is not, and shall not be deemed to be, a part of this report or incorporated into any other filing we make with the SEC.

All reports filed with the SEC may also be read and copied at the SEC’s public reference room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Further information regarding the operation of the public reference room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. In addition, all of our reports filed with or furnished to the SEC can be obtained at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

18

Table of Contents

Investment in our common shares involves significant risks. If any of the following risks occurs, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, we may be unable to make distributions to our shareholders, the market value of our common shares could decline significantly, and you may lose some or all of your investment. In connection with the forward-looking statements that appear in our periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K, our Current Reports on Form 8-K and our other disclosure documents, you should also carefully review the cautionary statements referred to in such reports and other disclosure documents under “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

Risks Related To Our Business

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

Our business is materially affected by conditions in the residential mortgage market, the residential real estate market, the financial markets and the economy generally. Concerns about the residential mortgage market and a declining real estate market, as well as inflation, energy costs, geopolitical issues and the availability and cost of credit have contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy and markets going forward. The residential mortgage market has been severely affected by changes in the lending landscape, the severity of which was largely unanticipated by the markets. There is no assurance that this market has stabilized or that it will not worsen.

For now (and for the foreseeable future), homeowner access to residential mortgage loans has been substantially limited. While the limitation on financing was initially in the subprime mortgage market, it also materially affected the prime jumbo and Alt-A mortgage market, with lending standards having become significantly more stringent than in past periods and many product types being severely curtailed or eliminated. This financing limitation has had an impact on new demand for homes, has compressed home ownership rates and is weighing heavily on home price performance. There is a strong correlation between home price depreciation and mortgage loan delinquencies. Furthermore, investor perception of the risks associated with RMBS, residential mortgage loans, real estate-related securities and various other assets that we acquire has been negatively impacted by the continued adverse developments in the broader residential mortgage market, which has caused the values of these assets to experience high volatility. The further deterioration of the mortgage market and investor perception of the risks associated with RMBS, residential mortgage loans, real estate-related securities and various other assets that we acquire could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

No assurance can be given that the actions taken by the Federal Government, including the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, and other governmental and regulatory bodies, for the purpose of stabilizing the financial and credit markets will achieve their intended effect, or will benefit our business, and further government or market developments could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

In response to the issues affecting the banking system and financial and housing markets, the Federal Government, including the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, and other governmental and regulatory bodies, have taken a number of initiatives intended to bolster the banking system and the financial and housing markets. For a description of some of these initiatives, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Trends and Recent Market Developments” in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In many cases, the effects of the actions taken by the Federal Government and governmental entities and regulatory bodies remain uncertain. Furthermore, the scope and nature of many of these and other actions are

19

Table of Contents

unknown and will continue to evolve. No assurance can be given that these initiatives will have the intended beneficial impact on the banking system, financial market or housing market. To the extent the markets do not respond favorably to these initiatives or if these initiatives do not function as intended, the pricing, supply, liquidity and value of our assets and the availability of financing on attractive terms may be materially adversely affected and our business may not receive the intended positive impact from these actions. In addition, the Federal Government and other governmental and regulatory bodies have taken or are considering taking other actions in the wake of the financial crisis and its aftermath. We cannot predict whether or when such actions may occur, and such actions could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related efforts, along with any changes in laws and regulations affecting the relationship between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae and the Federal Government, may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The payments we receive on our Agency RMBS depend upon a steady stream of payments on the underlying mortgages and such payments are guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored enterprises, or “GSEs”, but their guarantees are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Ginnie Mae, which guarantees MBS backed by federally insured or guaranteed loans primarily consisting of loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, or “FHA”, or guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, or “VA”, is part of a U.S. Government agency and its guarantees are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

In response to the deteriorating financial condition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the credit market disruption, the United States Congress and the Treasury undertook a series of actions to stabilize these GSEs and the financial markets generally, including the enactment of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, or the “HERA”, on July 30, 2008. These actions include steps taken by the Treasury to capitalize and provide financing to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. See also “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Trends and Recent Market Developments” appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Shortly after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed in federal conservatorship, the Secretary of the 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 considerably limited relative to historical measurements or even eliminated. Under this conservatorship, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to reduce the amount of mortgage loans they own or for which they provide guarantees on Agency RMBS. Moreover, any changes to the nature of the guarantees provided by, or laws affecting, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae could materially adversely affect the credit quality of the guarantees, could increase the risk of loss on purchases of Agency RMBS issued by these GSEs and could have broad adverse market implications for the Agency RMBS they currently guarantee. Any action that affects the credit quality of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae could materially adversely affect the value of our Agency RMBS.

The Treasury could also stop providing financial support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the future. The substantial financial assistance provided by the Federal Government to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, especially in the course of their being placed into conservatorship and thereafter, together with the substantial financial assistance provided by the Federal Government to the mortgage-related operations of other GSEs and government agencies, such as the FHA, the VA, and Ginnie Mae, has stirred debate among many federal policymakers over the continued role of the Federal Government in providing such financial support for the mortgage-related GSEs in particular, and for the mortgage and housing markets in general. In August 2010, the Obama administration hosted a major conference on the future of housing finance, which included a discussion

20

Table of Contents

regarding the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with the intended goal of developing a comprehensive housing finance reform proposal for delivery to Congress by January 2011. In February 2011, the Treasury released a White Paper entitled “Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market” in which the Treasury outlined three possible options for reforming the Federal Government’s role in housing finance. Under each option, the role of the Federal Government in the mortgage market would be reduced. Each of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae could be dissolved and the Federal Government could determine to stop providing liquidity support of any kind to the mortgage market. If Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae were eliminated, or their structures were to change radically or the Federal Government significantly reduced its support for any or all of them, we may be unable or significantly limited in our ability to acquire Agency RMBS, which would drastically reduce the amount and type of Agency RMBS available for purchase which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our ability to maintain our exclusion from regulation as an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

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

In the second half of 2008, the Federal Government, through FHA and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or “FDIC”, commenced implementation of programs designed to provide homeowners with assistance in avoiding residential mortgage loan foreclosures. The programs involve, among other things, the modification of mortgage loans to reduce the principal amount of the loans or the rate of interest payable on the loans, or to extend the payment terms of the loans. It is likely that loan modifications would result in interest rate reductions or principal reductions on the mortgage loans that back our RMBS. However, it is also likely that loan modifications would result in increased prepayments on some RMBS. See below “—Prepayment rates can change, adversely affecting the performance of our assets,” for information relating to the impact of prepayments on our business.

In addition, members of Congress have indicated support for additional legislative relief for homeowners, including an amendment of the bankruptcy laws to permit the modification of mortgage loans in bankruptcy proceedings. Under such an amendment, the bankruptcy judge would have the authority to modify mortgage loans that are in default, or for which default is reasonably foreseeable, if such modifications are in the best interests of the holders of the related RMBS and such modifications are done in accordance with the terms of the relevant agreements. A significant number of loan modifications could result in a significant reduction in cash flows to the holders of the related RMBS on an ongoing basis.

These loan modification programs, as well as future legislative or regulatory actions, including amendments to the bankruptcy laws, that result in the modification of outstanding mortgage loans may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, our assets which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The increasing number of proposed federal, state and local laws may increase our risk of liability with respect to certain mortgage loans and could increase our cost of doing business.

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

21

Table of Contents

The principal and interest payments on our non-Agency RMBS are not guaranteed by any entity, including any government entity or GSE, and, therefore, are subject to increased risks, including credit risk.

Our portfolio includes non-Agency RMBS which are backed by residential mortgage loans that do not conform to the Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac underwriting guidelines, including subprime, Alt-A and prime jumbo mortgage loans. See “Item 1 Business—Our Targeted Asset Classes” appearing elsewhere in this report for a detailed description of our assets. Consequently, the principal and interest on non-Agency RMBS, unlike those on Agency RMBS, are not guaranteed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or, in the case of Ginnie Mae, the Federal Government.

Non-Agency RMBS are subject to many of the risks of the respective underlying mortgage loans. Residential mortgage loans are typically secured by single-family residential property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property is dependent upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors, including a general economic downturn, acts of God, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances, may impair borrowers’ abilities to repay their mortgage loans.

In the event of defaults under mortgage loans backing any of our non-Agency RMBS, we will 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. Additionally, 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. If borrowers default on the mortgage loans backing our non-Agency RMBS and we are unable to recover any resulting loss through the foreclosure process, our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders could be materially adversely affected.

Less stringent underwriting guidelines and the resultant potential for delinquencies or defaults on certain mortgage loans could lead to losses on some of the non-Agency RMBS we hold.

Many, if not most, of the mortgage loans that underlie the non-Agency RMBS in which the Fund invests were originated using less stringent underwriting guidelines than those used in underwriting prime mortgage loans (mortgage loans that generally conform to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac underwriting guidelines). These underwriting guidelines were more permissive as to borrower credit history or credit score, borrower debt-to-income ratio, loan-to-value ratio, and/or as to documentation (such as whether and to what extent borrower income was required to be disclosed or verified). In addition, even when specific underwriting guidelines were represented by loan originators as having been used in connection with the origination of mortgage loans, these guidelines were in many cases not followed as a result of aggressive lending practices, fraud (including borrower or appraisal fraud), or other factors. Mortgage loans that were underwritten pursuant to less stringent or looser underwriting guidelines, or that were poorly underwritten to their stated guidelines, have experienced, and should be expected to experience in the future, substantially higher rates of delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures than those experienced by mortgage loans that were underwritten in a manner more consistent with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines.

We rely on analytical models and other data to analyze potential asset acquisition and disposition opportunities and to manage our portfolio. Such models and other data may be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, which could cause us to purchase assets that do not meet our expectations or to make asset management decisions that are not in line with our strategy.

Our Manager relies on the analytical models (both proprietary and third-party models) of Ellington and information and data supplied by third parties. These models and data may be used to value assets or potential

22

Table of Contents

asset acquisitions and dispositions and also in connection with our asset management activities. If Ellington’s models and data prove to be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon could expose us to potential risks. Our Manager’s reliance on Ellington’s models and data may induce it to purchase certain assets at prices that are too high, to sell certain other assets at prices that are too low, or to miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging activities that are based on faulty models and data may prove to be unsuccessful.

Some of the risks of relying on analytical models and third-party data include the following:

Some models, such as prepayment models or mortgage default models, may be predictive in nature. The use of predictive models has inherent risks. For example, such models may incorrectly forecast future behavior, leading to potential losses. 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 assets than actual market prices. Furthermore, because 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, in the case of predicting performance in scenarios with little or no historical precedent (such as extreme broad-based declines in home prices, or deep economic recessions or depressions), such models must employ greater degrees of extrapolation, and are therefore more speculative and of more limited reliability.

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 market data is input correctly, “model prices” will often differ substantially from market prices, especially for securities with complex characteristics or whose values are particularly sensitive to various factors. If our market data inputs are incorrect or our model prices differ substantially from market prices, our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders could be materially adversely affected.

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

The values of some of the assets in our portfolio are not readily determinable. We value these assets quarterly at fair value, as determined in good faith by our Manager, subject to the oversight of the valuation subcommittee of the Manager’s investment and risk management committee as well as the oversight of the independent members of our Board of Directors, and changes in the fair value of our assets directly impact our net income. Because such valuations are inherently uncertain, may fluctuate over short periods of time and may be based on estimates, our Manager’s determinations of fair value may differ from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these assets existed or from the prices at which trades occur. Furthermore, we do not obtain third party valuations for all of our assets. Our Manager’s determination of fair value has a material impact on our net earnings through recording unrealized appreciation or depreciation of investments.

23

Table of Contents

While in many cases our Manager’s determination of the fair value of our assets is based on valuations provided by third-party dealers and pricing services, our Manager can and does value assets based upon its judgment and such valuations may differ from those provided by third-party dealers and pricing services. Valuations of certain assets are often difficult to obtain or are unreliable. In general, dealers and pricing services heavily disclaim their valuations. Additionally, 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 an asset, valuations of the same asset can vary substantially from one dealer or pricing service to another. Higher valuations of our assets have the effect of increasing the amount of base management fees and incentive fees we pay to our Manager. Therefore, conflicts of interest exist because our Manager is involved in the determination of the fair value of our assets. The valuation process has been particularly difficult in the aftermath of the financial crisis, as market events have made valuations of certain assets more difficult and unpredictable and the disparity of valuations provided by third-party dealers has widened as compared to periods preceding the financial crisis.

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

We depend on third-party service providers, including mortgage servicers, for a variety of services related to our non-Agency RMBS, and we intend to utilize third-party service providers if we acquire pools of whole mortgage loans. We are, therefore, subject to the risks associated with third-party service providers.

We depend on a variety of services provided by third-party service providers related to our non-Agency RMBS, and we will depend on similar services should we acquire pools of whole mortgage loans. We rely on the mortgage servicers who service the mortgage loans backing our non-Agency RMBS to, among other things, collect principal and interest payments on the underlying mortgages and perform loss mitigation services. Our mortgage servicers and other service providers to our non-Agency RMBS, such as trustees, bond insurance providers and custodians, may not perform in a manner that promotes our interests. In addition, legislation that has been enacted in order to reduce or prevent foreclosures through, among other things, loan modifications may reduce the value of mortgage loans backing our non-Agency RMBS or whole mortgage loans that we acquire, and mortgage servicers may be incentivized by the Federal Government to pursue such loan modifications, as well as forbearance plans and other actions intended to prevent foreclosure, even if such loan modifications and other actions are not in the best interest of the holder of the mortgage loan. In addition to legislation that creates financial incentives for mortgage loan servicers to modify loans and take other actions that are intended to prevent foreclosures, legislation has also been adopted that creates a safe harbor from liability to creditors for servicers that undertake loan modifications and other actions that are intended to prevent foreclosures. As a result of these legislative actions, the mortgage loan servicers on which we rely may not perform in our best interests or up to our expectations. If our third-party service providers do not perform as expected, our business, financial condition and results of operations and ability to make distributions to our shareholders may be materially adversely affected.

We rely on mortgage servicers for our loss mitigation efforts, and we also may engage in our own loss mitigation efforts with respect to whole mortgage loans we may purchase. Such loss mitigation efforts may be unsuccessful or not cost effective.

Both default frequency and default severity of mortgage loans are highly dependent on the quality of the mortgage servicer. We depend on the loss mitigation efforts of mortgage servicers and in some cases “special servicers,” which are mortgage servicers who specialize in servicing non-performing loans. If mortgage servicers are not vigilant in encouraging borrowers to make their monthly payments, the borrowers are far less likely to make those payments. In addition, if we purchase pools of whole mortgage loans, we may engage in our own loss mitigation efforts in addition to the efforts of the mortgage servicers, including more hands-on mortgage servicer

24

Table of Contents

oversight and management, borrower refinancing solicitations, as well as other efforts. Our and our mortgage servicers’ loss mitigation efforts may be unsuccessful in limiting delinquencies, defaults and losses, or may not be cost effective, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

To the extent that due diligence is conducted on potential assets, especially non-Agency RMBS or pools of whole mortgage loans, such due diligence may not reveal all of the risks associated with such assets and may not reveal other weaknesses in such assets, which could lead to losses.

Before acquiring non-Agency RMBS or pools of whole mortgage loans, our Manager may decide to conduct (either directly or using third parties) certain due diligence. Such due diligence may include (i) an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the originators or services of the related mortgage loans, (ii) a review of all or merely a subset of the related individual mortgage loans in order to, among other things, assess the accuracy or reasonableness of certain loan-level information, and to estimate current loan-to-value ratios by obtaining updated property appraisals or otherwise, or (iii) other reviews that our Manager may deem appropriate to conduct. There can be no assurance that our Manager will conduct any specific level of due diligence, or that, among other things, our Manager’s due diligence processes will uncover all relevant facts or that any purchase will be successful, which could result in losses on these assets, which, in turn, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Sellers of the mortgage loans that underlie the non-Agency RMBS in which we invest may be unable to repurchase defective mortgage loans, which could have a material adverse effect on the value of the loans held by the trust that issued the RMBS and could cause shortfalls in the payments due on the RMBS.

Sellers of mortgage loans to the trusts that issued the non-Agency RMBS in which we invest made various representations and warranties related to the mortgage loans sold by them to the trusts that issued the RMBS. If a seller fails to cure a material breach of its representations and warranties with respect to any mortgage loan in a timely manner, then the trustee or the servicer of the loans may have the right to require that the seller repurchase the defective mortgage loan (or in some cases substitute a performing mortgage loan). It is possible, however, that for financial or other reasons, the seller either may not be capable of repurchasing defective mortgage loans, or may dispute the validity of or otherwise resist its obligation to repurchase defective mortgage loans. The inability or unwillingness of a seller to repurchase defective mortgage loans from a non-Agency RMBS trust in which we invest would likely cause higher rates of delinquencies, defaults and losses for the mortgage loans backing such non-Agency RMBS trust, and ultimately greater losses for the Fund’s investment in such non-Agency RMBS.

Our assets include subordinated and lower-rated securities that generally have greater risks of loss than senior and higher-rated securities.

Certain securities that we acquire are deemed by rating companies to have substantial vulnerability to default in payment of interest and/or principal. Other securities we acquire have the lowest quality ratings or are unrated. Many RMBS or ABS that we acquire are subordinated in cash flow priority to other more “senior” securities of the same securitization. The risks of defaults on the underlying mortgages or assets are severely magnified in subordinated securities. Certain subordinated securities (“first loss securities”) absorb all losses from default before any other class of securities is at risk. Such securities therefore possess some of the attributes typically associated with equity securities. Also, the risk of declining real estate values, in particular, is amplified in subordinated RMBS, as are the risks associated with possible changes in the market’s perception of the entity issuing or guaranteeing them, or by changes in government regulations and tax policies. Accordingly, these securities may experience significant price and performance volatility relative to more senior securities and they are subject to greater risk of loss than more senior securities which, if realized, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

25

Table of Contents

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

The frequency at which prepayments (including both voluntary prepayments by the borrowers and liquidations due to defaults and foreclosures) occur on mortgage loans underlying RMBS is affected by a variety of factors, including the prevailing level of interest rates as well as economic, demographic, tax, social, legal, and other factors. Generally, borrowers tend to prepay their mortgages when prevailing mortgage rates fall below the interest rates on their mortgage loans. Many of the mortgage loans underlying our existing RMBS were originated in a relatively higher interest rate environment than currently in effect and, therefore, could be prepaid if borrowers are eligible for refinancing.

In general, “premium” securities (securities whose market values exceed their principal or par amounts) are adversely affected by faster-than-anticipated prepayments because the above-market coupon that such premium securities carry will be earned for a shorter period of time. Generally, “discount” securities (securities whose principal or par amounts exceed their market values) are adversely affected by slower-than-anticipated prepayments. Since many RMBS will be discount securities when interest rates are high, and will be premium securities when interest rates are low, these RMBS may be adversely affected by changes in prepayments in any interest rate environment.

During the first quarter of 2010, each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced that it would significantly increase its repurchase of mortgage loans that are 120 or more days delinquent from mortgage pools backing Freddie Mac guaranteed RMBS or Fannie Mae guaranteed RMBS, as applicable. The initial effect of these repurchases was similar to a one-time or short-term increase in mortgage prepayment rates. The ongoing magnitude of the effect of these repurchases on a particular Agency RMBS depends upon the composition of the mortgage pool underlying each Agency RMBS, although for many Agency RMBS the effect has been, and we expect will continue to be, significant.

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

Changes in interest rates could negatively affect the value of our assets, and increase the risk of default on our assets.

Currently, our assets primarily consist of RMBS. Most RMBS, especially most fixed-rate RMBS and most RMBS backed by fixed-rate mortgage loans, decline in value when long-term interest rates increase. Even in the case of Agency RMBS, the guarantees provided by GSEs do not protect us from declines in market value caused by changes in interest rates. In the case of RMBS backed by ARMs, increases in interest rates can lead to increases in delinquencies and defaults as borrowers become less able to make their mortgage payments following interest payment resets. At the same time, an increase in short-term interest rates would increase the amount of interest owed on our reverse repo borrowings.

RMBS backed by ARMs are typically subject to periodic and lifetime interest rate caps. Periodic interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase during any given period. Lifetime interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase over the life of the security. Our borrowings typically are not subject to similar restrictions. Accordingly, in a period of rapidly increasing interest rates, the interest rates paid on our

26

Table of Contents

borrowings could increase without limitation while interest rate caps could limit the interest rates on our RMBS backed by ARMs. This problem is magnified for RMBS backed by ARMs and hybrid ARMs that are not fully indexed. Further, some RMBS backed by ARMs and hybrid ARMs may be subject to periodic payment caps that result in a portion of the interest being deferred and added to the principal outstanding. As a result, the payments we receive on RMBS backed by ARMs and hybrid ARMs may be lower than the related debt service costs. These factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

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

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

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

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

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

27

Table of Contents

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

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 CMBS are at risk of loss.

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

We may not control the special servicing of the mortgage loans included in the CMBS in which we invest and, in such cases, the special servicer may take actions that could adversely affect our interests.

With respect to the CMBS in which we invest, overall control over the special servicing of the related underlying mortgage loans will be held by a “directing certificateholder” or a “controlling class representative”, which is generally appointed by the holders of the most subordinate class of CMBS in such series. In connection with the servicing of the specially serviced mortgage loans, the related special servicer may, at the direction of the directing certificateholder, take actions with respect to the specially serviced mortgage loans that could adversely affect our interests. See above “—We rely on mortgage servicers for our loss mitigation efforts, and we also may engage in our own loss mitigation efforts with respect to whole mortgage loans we may purchase. Such loss mitigation efforts may be unsuccessful or not cost effective” for further discussion of the risks of our reliance on special servicers.

28

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

We engage in short selling transactions, which may subject us to additional risks.

Many of our hedging transactions, and occasionally our investment transactions, are short sales. Short selling may involve selling securities that are not owned and typically borrowing the same securities for delivery to the purchaser, with an obligation to repurchase the borrowed securities at a later date. Short selling allows the investor to profit from declines in market prices to the extent such declines exceed the transaction costs and the costs of borrowing the securities. A short sale may create the risk of an unlimited loss, in that the price of the underlying security might theoretically increase without limit, thus increasing the cost of repurchasing the securities. There can be no assurance that securities sold short will be available for repurchase or borrowing. Repurchasing securities to close out a short position can itself cause the price of the securities to rise further, thereby exacerbating the loss.

We leverage certain of our assets, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We currently leverage certain of our assets through borrowings under reverse repos. The degree of leverage we employ may increase substantially in the future. Leverage can enhance our potential returns but can also exacerbate losses. Market conditions could cause our financing costs to increase relative to the income earned from our assets. To the extent that we cannot meet our debt service obligations, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to forced liquidation in order to satisfy our debt obligations.

29

Table of Contents

If our financing costs increase relative to the income earned from our assets or we are unable to satisfy our debt service obligations, our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders may be materially adversely affected.

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

We depend upon the availability of adequate capital and financing sources to fund our operations. However, as discussed elsewhere herein, the capital and credit markets experienced unprecedented levels of volatility and disruption which exerted downward pressure on credit capacity for lenders. If these levels of market volatility and disruption recur, it could materially adversely affect one or more of our lenders and could cause one or more of our lenders to be unwilling or unable to provide us with financing, or to increase the costs of that financing, or to become insolvent, as was the case with Lehman Brothers. Moreover, we are currently party to reverse repos of a short duration and there can be no assurance that we will be able to roll over these borrowings on favorable terms, if at all. In the event we are unable to roll over our reverse repos, it may be more difficult for us to obtain debt financing on favorable terms or at all. In addition, if regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders change, they may be required to limit, or increase the cost of, financing they provide to us. In general, this could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity or require us to sell assets at an inopportune time or price. While a few new securitizations have come to market over the past year, securitizations remain generally unavailable, which has also limited borrowings under warehouse facilities and other credit facilities that are intended to be refinanced by such securitizations. Consequently, depending on market conditions at the relevant time, we may have to rely on additional equity issuances to meet our capital and financing needs, which may be dilutive to our shareholders, or we may have to rely on less efficient forms of debt financing that consume a larger portion of our cash flow from operations, thereby reducing funds available for our operations, future business opportunities, cash distributions to our shareholders and other purposes. We cannot assure you that we will have access to such equity or debt capital on favorable terms (including, without limitation, cost and term) at the desired times, or at all, which may cause us to curtail our asset acquisition activities and/or dispose of assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Interest rate mismatches between our assets and any borrowings used to fund purchases of our assets may reduce our income during periods of changing interest rates.

Some of our assets are fixed-rate securities or have a fixed rate component (such as hybrid ARMs). This means that the interest we earn on these assets will not vary over time based upon changes in a short-term interest rate index. Although the interest we earn on our RMBS backed by ARMs generally will adjust for changing interest rates, the interest rate adjustments may not occur as quickly as the interest rate adjustments to any related reverse repos. Therefore, to the extent we finance our assets with reverse repos or other types of floating rate debt, the interest rate indices and repricing terms of our assets and their funding sources will create an interest rate mismatch between our assets and liabilities. Additionally, our RMBS backed by ARMs will generally be subject to interest rate caps, which potentially could cause such RMBS to acquire many of the characteristics of fixed-rate securities if interest rates were to rise above the cap levels. The use of interest rate hedges also will introduce the risk of other interest rate mismatches and exposures, as will the use of other financing techniques. During periods of changing interest rates, these mismatches could cause our business, financial condition and results of operations and ability to make distributions to our shareholders to be materially adversely affected.

30

Table of Contents

Our lenders may require us to provide additional collateral, especially when the market values for our assets decline, which may restrict us from leveraging our assets as fully as desired, force us to liquidate assets, reduce our liquidity, and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Our reverse repos allow the lenders, to varying degrees, to determine an updated market value of the collateral to reflect current market conditions. If the market value of the collateral declines in value, we may be required by the lender to provide additional collateral or pay down a portion of the funds advanced on minimal notice, which is known as a margin call. Posting additional collateral will reduce our liquidity and limit our ability to leverage our assets. Additionally, in order to satisfy a margin call, we may be required to liquidate assets at a disadvantageous time, which could cause us to incur further losses and adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition, and may impair our ability to make distributions. We receive margin calls from our lenders from time to time in the ordinary course of business similar to other entities in the specialty finance business. In the event we do not have sufficient liquidity to satisfy these margin calls, lending institutions can accelerate our indebtedness, increase our borrowing rates, liquidate our collateral and terminate our ability to borrow. A significant increase in margin calls could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders, and could increase our risk of insolvency.

Further, lenders may require us to maintain a certain amount of cash that is not invested or to set aside non-leveraged 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 portfolio as fully as we would prefer, which could reduce our return on equity. In the event that we are unable to meet these collateral maintenance obligations, then, as described above, our financial condition could deteriorate rapidly.

Our rights under our reverse repos are subject to the effects of the bankruptcy laws in the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of us or our lenders.

In the event of our insolvency or bankruptcy, certain reverse repos may qualify for special treatment under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the effect of which, among other things, would be to allow the lender to avoid the automatic stay provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and to foreclose on and/or liquidate the collateral pledged under such agreements without delay. In the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of a lender during the term of a reverse repo, the lender may be permitted, under applicable insolvency laws, to repudiate the contract, and our claim against the lender for damages may be treated simply as an unsecured creditor. In addition, if the lender is a broker or dealer subject to the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, or an insured depository institution subject to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, our ability to exercise our rights to recover our securities under a reverse repo or to be compensated for any damages resulting from the lenders’ insolvency may be further limited by those statutes. These claims would be subject to significant delay and costs to us and, if and when received, may be substantially less than the damages we actually incur.

Some of our lending and derivative counterparties may cease doing business with us or may become insolvent, which would adversely affect our ability to obtain financing readily or on favorable terms and enter into derivatives or may expose us to losses on our derivatives.

The ongoing volatility in the economy and stress within the financial industry may cause some of our lenders and the counterparties to our derivative positions to cease doing business with us, or to become insolvent, as was the case with Lehman Brothers. In the event one or more of our lenders cease doing business with us or become insolvent, it may be more difficult for us to obtain additional debt financing on favorable terms or at all. We also are exposed to the risk of loss associated with the insolvency of our lending and derivatives counterparties, including the risk that we may incur significant costs in attempting to recover any collateral held with such counterparties and the risk that we may not be able to recover such collateral in a timely manner or at all. Any of these events could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

31

Table of Contents

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

We opportunistically pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to losses from adverse credit events and other factors. Hedging against a decline in the values of our portfolio positions does not prevent losses if the values of such positions decline, or eliminate the possibility of fluctuations in the value of our portfolio. Hedging transactions generally will limit the opportunity for gain if the values of our portfolio positions should increase. Further, certain hedging transactions could result in our experiencing significant losses. Moreover, at any point in time we may choose not to hedge all or a portion of these risks, and we generally will not hedge those risks that we believe are appropriate for us to take at such time, or that we believe would be impractical or prohibitively expensive to hedge. Even if we do choose to hedge certain risks, for a variety of reasons we generally will not seek to establish a perfect correlation between our hedging instruments and the risks being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the composition of our portfolio, our market views, and changing market conditions, including the level and volatility of interest rates. When we do choose to hedge, hedging may fail to protect or could materially adversely affect us because, among other things:

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

Hedging instruments and other derivatives, including credit default swaps, historically have not, in many cases, been traded on regulated exchanges, or been guaranteed or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities and involve risks and costs that could result in material losses.

Hedging instruments and other derivatives, including credit default swaps, involve risk because they historically have not, in many cases, been traded on regulated exchanges and have not been guaranteed or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, for these instruments there are no requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. Our Manager is not restricted from dealing

32

Table of Contents

with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of its transactions with one counterparty. Furthermore, our Manager has only a limited internal credit function to evaluate the creditworthiness of its counterparties, mainly relying on its experience with such counterparties and their general reputation as participants in these markets. The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in a default under the hedging agreement. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction, such as occurred with Lehman Brothers, may result in losses and may force us to re-initiate similar hedges with other counterparties at the then-prevailing market levels. Generally we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging transactions upon a counterparty’s insolvency, but absent an actual insolvency, we may not be able to terminate a hedging transaction without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to assign or otherwise dispose of a hedging transaction to another counterparty without the consent of both the original hedging counterparty and the potential assignee. If we terminate a hedging transaction, we may not be able to enter into a replacement contract in order to cover our risk. There can be no assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and therefore we may be required to maintain any hedging position until exercise or expiration, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

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

We may change our asset acquisition strategy, hedging strategy and asset allocation and operational and management policies at any time without the consent of our shareholders, which could result in our purchasing assets or entering into hedging transactions that are different from, and possibly riskier than, the assets and hedging transactions described elsewhere in this report. A change in our asset acquisition or hedging strategy may increase our exposure to real estate values, interest rates and other factors. A change in our asset allocation could result in us purchasing assets in classes different from those described in this report. Our Board of Directors determines our operational policies and may amend or revise our policies, including those with respect to our acquisitions, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization and distributions or approve transactions that deviate from these policies without a vote of, or notice to, our shareholders. Operational policy changes could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

When we raise additional capital, we may invest the proceeds in short-term, interest bearing, lower yielding investments than our targeted assets pending deployment of the proceeds in our targeted assets.

In the future, when we raise additional capital, it may take us several months to fully deploy the proceeds from any such capital raising transaction in our targeted assets. Pending such deployment, we may invest the proceeds in short-term, interest bearing investments, including money market accounts that provide lower yields than we will seek to achieve from our targeted assets. Further, there is no assurance that suitable investment opportunities in our targeted assets will be available even within a period of months after a capital raising transaction. As a result, when we raise additional capital, our ability to provide returns and to pay dividends to our shareholders that equal or exceed our past returns and dividends may be adversely affected.

33

Table of Contents

We may not realize income or gains from our assets.

We acquire assets to generate both current income and capital appreciation. The assets we acquire may, however, not appreciate in value and, in fact, may decline in value, and the debt securities we purchase may default on interest or principal payments. Accordingly, we may not be able to realize income or gains from our acquired assets. Any gains that we do realize may not be sufficient to offset any other losses we experience. Any income that we realize may not be sufficient to offset our expenses.

We or Ellington or its affiliates may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory changes.

At any time, laws or regulations that impact our business, or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations, may be enacted or amended. For example, on July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or “Dodd-Frank Act”, which requires, among other things, significant revisions to and strengthening of the legal and regulatory framework for derivatives and the issuance of asset-backed securities, including RMBS. The Dodd-Frank Act established the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”) that is charged with monitoring and mitigating systemic risk. As part of this responsibility, the Council has the authority to designate certain banks and other financial firms (including, potentially our company) as “systemically important” which may subject them to regulation by the Federal Reserve Board and limit the amount of risk-taking in which the firm may engage. The Dodd-Frank Act also affects our Manager by, among other things, mandating new reporting requirements, including, but not limited to, position information, use of leverage and counterparty and credit risk exposure.

As is frequently the case for regulatory reform legislation of this breadth, the legislation itself is only the starting point. The Dodd-Frank Act directs various regulatory bodies to draft, adopt and implement more than 240 regulations, many of which will influence dramatically the scope, substance and practical impact of the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act calls for various government bodies and agencies to complete an aggregate of almost 70 studies regarding a broad range of issues concerning the financial services industry that were raised during the legislative process. Moreover, regulatory bodies may also elect to exercise permissive rulemaking authority with respect to various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Accordingly, while some aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act will be effective immediately, other aspects of this legislation will unfold in future months or years.

The derivatives market, and the credit derivatives market in particular, has been a significant focus for legislators and market regulators in considering additional regulations. Given the variety of potential regulations that have been proposed and the preliminary nature of most of the proposals, we are not able at this time to predict the impact any final regulations might have on our business. Proposed regulations could have positive, adverse or mixed consequences for our business. For example, some measures being considered and that we expect will be adopted would require that certain derivatives be traded on regulated exchanges or through clearinghouses. While such changes could benefit us by substantially reducing our derivatives counterparty-related risks, they might also reduce some of the market inefficiencies that we believe create opportunities for us. Such changes might also impact the amount of collateral that we are required to post against our derivatives positions, which could affect our liquidity and the amount of capital that we have available for our non-derivative investment activities. Such changes may lead us to re-evaluate our derivatives strategy in particular and our investment strategy overall. No assurance can be given that any final regulations will not impact our business in a material and adverse way.

We cannot predict when or if any new law, regulation or administrative interpretation, including those related to the Dodd-Frank Act, such as increased regulatory oversight of derivative transactions, or any amendment to any existing law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted or promulgated or will become effective. Additionally, the adoption or implementation of any new law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any revisions in these laws, regulations or administrative interpretations, including those related to the Dodd-Frank Act, could cause us to change our portfolio, could constrain our strategy or increase our costs. We could be adversely affected by any change in, or any new, law, regulation or administrative interpretation.

34

Table of Contents

We or Ellington or its affiliates may be subject to regulatory inquiries or proceedings.

At any time, industry-wide or company-specific regulatory inquiries or proceedings can be initiated and we cannot predict when or if any such regulatory inquiries or proceedings will be initiated that involve us, Ellington, or its affiliates, including our Manager. For example, in the last several years, Ellington and its affiliates have received, and we expect in the future that they may receive, inquiries and requests for documents and information from various federal, state and foreign regulators, including the following:

In August 2007, Ellington received a subpoena from the New York Attorney General, or the “NYAG”, requesting documents and other information from Ellington about its and its affiliates’ mortgage loan servicing activities. Ellington informed the NYAG that it did not engage in mortgage loan servicing. Ellington subsequently received subpoenas for documents and information relating to Ellington’s residual or equity interests in mortgage securitization trusts; communications with and information received from mortgage servicers relating to these trusts and their underlying mortgage loans; and trading in bonds of these trusts and related credit default swaps, and for documents and other information relating to communications with and information received from one of its vendors, which had performed asset surveillance for Ellington on these trusts. Ellington completed its response to the NYAG subpoenas in June 2008 and has had no communication with the NYAG since that time.

In March 2008, Ellington received a subpoena from the SEC requesting documents and other information relating primarily to CDOs underwritten during 2007 and 2008 by a particular investment bank and for which Ellington acted as collateral manager. Ellington provided an initial response to the subpoena in April 2008 and finished its production in May 2009. Ellington has had no communication with the SEC on the matter since that time.

In August 2009, Ellington and one of its affiliates received subpoenas from the SEC seeking documents and information regarding certain structuring, sales and marketing practices in the CDO market. The subpoenas sought documents and details regarding CDOs in which Ellington or its affiliates participated during 2006 and 2007. Ellington finished its production in response to the subpoenas in November 2009, responded to subsequent requests by the SEC for clarifications with respect to some of the information that Ellington produced to the SEC and intends to cooperate with any further requests.

In May 2010, Ellington received a request for documents and responses to interrogatories from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, or the “FCIC”, a commission formed to examine the causes of the financial and economic crisis in the United States and report thereon to the Congress and the President, relating to Ellington’s CDO business during the period from January 2000 through the present. Ellington produced documents on May 28, 2010 in response to the FCIC’s request. The operations of the FCIC concluded on February 13, 2011 after the delivery of its report issued on January 27, 2011.

We can give no assurances that regulatory inquiries such as those discussed above will not result in investigations of Ellington or its affiliates or enforcement actions, fines or penalties or the assertion of private litigation claims against Ellington or its affiliates. We believe the intense scrutiny of CDO market participants in particular (including large CDO collateral managers such as Ellington) increases the risk of additional inquiries and requests from regulatory or enforcement agencies. In the event regulatory inquiries such as those discussed above were to result in investigations, enforcement actions, fines, penalties or the assertion of private litigation claims against Ellington or its affiliates, our Manager’s ability to perform its obligations to us under the management agreement between us and our Manager, or Ellington’s ability to perform its obligations to our Manager under the services agreement between Ellington and our Manager, could be adversely impacted, which could in turn have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

35

Table of Contents

We operate in a highly competitive market.

Our profitability depends, in large part, on our ability to acquire targeted assets at favorable prices. We compete with a number of entities when acquiring our targeted assets, including mortgage REITs, financial companies, public and private funds, commercial and investment banks and residential and commercial finance companies. We may also compete with (i) the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to the extent they purchase assets in our targeted asset classes and (ii) companies that partner with and/or receive financing from the Federal Government, including PPIP participants. Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably greater access to capital and other resources than we do. Furthermore, new companies with significant amounts of capital have recently been formed or have raised additional capital, and may continue to be formed and raise additional capital in the future, and these companies may have objectives that overlap with ours, which may create competition for assets we wish to acquire. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that are not available to 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 assets to acquire and establish more relationships than us. Furthermore, competition for assets in our targeted asset classes may lead to the price of such assets increasing, which may further limit our ability to generate desired returns. We cannot assure you that the competitive pressures we face will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

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

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

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

For example, our portfolio of mortgage-related assets may at times be concentrated in certain property types that are subject to higher risk of foreclosure, or secured by properties concentrated in a limited number of geographic locations. To the extent that our portfolio is concentrated in any one region or type of security, downturns relating generally to such region or type of security may result in defaults on a number of our assets within a short time period, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The lack of liquidity in our assets may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Many of our assets are structured as private placements. As such, they may be subject to legal and other restrictions on resale, transfer, pledge or other disposition or will otherwise be less liquid than publicly-traded securities. Other assets of ours, while publicly issued, have limited liquidity on account of their complexity, turbulent market conditions or other factors. Illiquid assets typically experience greater price volatility, because a ready market does not exist, and they can be more difficult to value. The illiquidity of our assets may make it

36

Table of Contents

difficult for us to sell such assets if the need arises or to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions. In addition, if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we have previously recorded our assets. We may also face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate any assets for which we or our Manager has or could be attributed with material non-public information. If we are unable to sell our assets at favorable prices or at all, it could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

In addition, residential and commercial loan purchases and sales in particular are generally privately negotiated transactions made by and in certain instances limited to institutional investors with substantial investment experience with similar investments and who have conducted appropriate due diligence. The universe of potential investors for loans is prone to be more limited than that for securities (e.g. RMBS and CMBS) which are typically rated and issued pursuant to a publicly registered offering or pursuant to a private placement under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. Our investments may not have consistent secondary market liquidity, especially during periods of significant market disruption.

We could be subject to liability for potential violations of predatory lending laws, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Various federal, state and local laws have been enacted that are designed to discourage predatory lending practices. The federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, or “HOEPA”, prohibits inclusion of certain provisions in residential mortgage loans that have mortgage rates or origination costs in excess of prescribed levels and requires that borrowers be given certain disclosures prior to origination. Some states have enacted, or may enact, similar laws or regulations, which in some cases impose restrictions and requirements greater than those in HOEPA. In addition, under the anti-predatory lending laws of some states, the origination of certain residential mortgage loans, including loans that are not classified as “high cost” loans under applicable law, must satisfy a net tangible benefits test with respect to the related borrower. This test may be highly subjective and open to interpretation. As a result, a court may determine that a residential mortgage loan, for example, does not meet the test even if the related originator reasonably believed that the test was satisfied.

Failure of residential mortgage loan originators or servicers to comply with these laws, to the extent any of their residential mortgage loans become part of our mortgaged-related assets, could subject us, as an assignee or purchaser to the related residential mortgage loans, to monetary penalties and could result in the borrowers rescinding the affected residential mortgage loans. Lawsuits have been brought in various states making claims against assignees or purchasers of high cost loans for violations of state law. Named defendants in these cases have included numerous participants within the secondary mortgage market. If the loans are found to have been originated in violation of predatory or abusive lending laws, we could incur losses, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We may be exposed to environmental liabilities with respect to properties in which we have an interest.

In the course of our business, we may take title to real estate, and, if we do take title, we could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these properties. In such a circumstance, we may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation, and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or may be required to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances, or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. In addition, the presence of hazardous substances may adversely affect an owner’s ability to sell real estate or borrow using real estate as collateral. To the extent that an owner of an underlying property becomes liable for removal costs, the ability of the owner to make debt payments may be reduced, which in turn may materially adversely affect the value of the relevant mortgage-related assets held by us.

37

Table of Contents

Risks Related to our Relationship with our Manager and Ellington

We are dependent on our Manager and certain key personnel of Ellington that are provided to us through our Manager and may not find a suitable replacement if our Manager terminates the management agreement or such key personnel are no longer available to us.

We do not have any employees of our own. Our officers are employees of Ellington or one or more of its affiliates. We have no separate facilities and are completely reliant on our Manager, which has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and execution of our business strategies and risk management practices. We also depend on our Manager’s access to the professionals and principals of Ellington as well as information and deal flow generated by Ellington. The employees of Ellington identify, evaluate, negotiate, structure, close and monitor our portfolio. The departure of any of the senior officers of our Manager, or of a significant number of investment professionals or principals of Ellington, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to achieve our objectives. We can offer no assurance that our Manager will remain our manager or that we will continue to have access to our Manager’s senior management. We are subject to the risk that our Manager will terminate the management agreement or that we may deem it necessary to terminate the management agreement or prevent certain individuals from performing services for us and that no suitable replacement will be found to manage us.

The base management fee payable to our Manager is payable regardless of the performance of our portfolio, which may reduce our Manager’s incentive to devote the time and effort to seeking profitable opportunities for our portfolio.

We pay our Manager substantial base management fees based on our equity capital (as defined in the management agreement) regardless of the performance of our portfolio. The base management fee takes into account the net issuance proceeds of both common and preferred share offerings. Our Manager’s entitlement to non-performance-based compensation might reduce its incentive to devote the time and effort of its professionals to seeking profitable opportunities for our portfolio, which could result in a lower performance of our portfolio and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our Manager’s incentive fee may induce our Manager to acquire certain assets, including speculative or high risk assets, or to acquire assets with increased leverage, which could increase the risk to our portfolio.

In addition to its base management fee, our Manager is entitled to receive an incentive fee based, in large part, upon our achievement of targeted levels of net income. In evaluating asset acquisition and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn an incentive fee based on net income may lead our Manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of net income at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, maintaining liquidity and/or management of credit risk or market risk, in order to achieve a higher incentive fee. Assets with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative. This could result in increased risk to our portfolio.

Our Board of Directors has approved very broad investment guidelines for our Manager, but will not approve each decision made by our Manager to acquire, dispose of, or otherwise manage an asset.

Our Manager is authorized to follow very broad guidelines in pursuing our strategy. Our Board of Directors periodically reviews our guidelines and our portfolio and asset-management decisions; however, it does not review all of our proposed acquisitions. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, our Board of Directors relies primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Furthermore, our Manager may arrange for us to use complex strategies or to enter into complex transactions that may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our Board of Directors. Our Manager has great latitude within the broad guidelines in determining the types of assets it may decide are proper for us to acquire and other decisions with respect to the management of those assets. Poor decisions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

38

Table of Contents

We compete with Ellington’s other accounts for access to Ellington.

Ellington has sponsored and/or currently manages accounts with a focus that overlaps with our investment focus, and expects to continue to do so in the future. Ellington is not restricted in any way from sponsoring or accepting capital from new accounts, even for investing in asset classes or strategies that are similar to, or overlapping with, our asset classes or strategies. Therefore, we compete for access to the benefits that our relationship with our Manager and Ellington provides us. For the same reasons, the personnel of Ellington and our Manager may be unable to dedicate a substantial portion of their time managing our assets.

We and other Ellington accounts may compete for opportunities to acquire assets, which are allocated in accordance with Ellington’s investment allocation policies.

Ellington may, from time to time, simultaneously seek to purchase the same or similar assets for us (through our Manager) that it is seeking to purchase for other Ellington accounts, and has no duty to allocate such opportunities in a manner that preferentially favors us. Ellington makes available to us all opportunities to acquire assets that it determines, in its reasonable and good faith judgment, based on our objectives, policies and strategies, and other relevant factors, are appropriate for us in accordance with Ellington’s written investment allocation policy, subject to the exception that we might not participate in each such opportunity, but will on an overall basis equitably participate with Ellington’s other accounts in all such opportunities.

Since many of our targeted assets are typically available only in specified quantities and since many of our targeted assets are also targeted assets for other Ellington accounts, Ellington often is not able to buy as much of any given assets as required to satisfy their needs. In these cases, Ellington’s investment allocation procedures and policies typically allocate such assets to multiple accounts in proportion to their needs. As a result, accounts in start-up mode are given priority which could work to our disadvantage, particularly because there are no limitations surrounding Ellington’s ability to create new accounts. The policies permit departure from such proportional allocation when such allocation would result in an inefficiently small amount of the security being purchased for an account, which may also serve to preclude our ability to acquire certain assets.

There are conflicts of interest in our relationships with our Manager and Ellington, which could result in decisions that are not in the best interests of our shareholders.

We are subject to conflicts of interest arising out of our relationship with Ellington and our Manager. Two of Ellington’s employees are our directors and all of our executive officers—even those expected to dedicate all or substantially all of their time to us—are or will be employees of Ellington or one or more of its affiliates. As a result, our Manager and our officers may have conflicts between their duties to us and their duties to, and interests in, Ellington or our Manager.

We may acquire or sell assets in which Ellington or its affiliates have or may have an interest. Similarly, Ellington or its affiliates may acquire or sell assets in which we have or may have an interest. Although such acquisitions or dispositions may present conflicts of interest, we nonetheless may pursue and consummate such transactions. Additionally, we may engage in transactions directly with Ellington or its affiliates, including the purchase and sale of all or a portion of a portfolio asset.

Acquisitions made for entities with similar objectives may be different from those made on our behalf. Ellington may have economic interests in or other relationships with others in whose obligations or securities we may acquire. In particular, such persons may make and/or hold an investment in securities that we acquire that may be pari passu, senior or junior in ranking to our interest in the securities or in which partners, security holders, officers, directors, agents or employees of such persons serve on boards of directors or otherwise have ongoing relationships. Each of such ownership and other relationships may result in securities laws restrictions on transactions in such securities and otherwise create conflicts of interest. In such instances, Ellington may, in its sole discretion, make recommendations and decisions regarding such securities for other entities that may be

39

Table of Contents

the same as or different from those made with respect to such securities and may take actions (or omit to take actions) in the context of these other economic interests or relationships the consequences of which may be adverse to our interests.

In deciding whether to issue additional debt or equity securities, we will rely in part on recommendations made by our Manager. While such decisions are subject to the approval of our Board of Directors, two of our directors are also Ellington employees. Because our Manager earns base management fees that are based on the total amount of our equity capital, and earns incentive fees that are based in part on the total net income that we are able to generate, our Manager may have an incentive to recommend that we issue additional debt or equity securities. See below “—Future offerings of debt or equity securities may adversely affect the market value of common shares” for further discussion of the adverse impact future debt or equity offerings could have on our common shares.

The officers of our Manager and its affiliates devote as much time to us as our Manager deems appropriate, however, these officers may have conflicts in allocating their time and services among us and Ellington and its affiliates’ accounts. During turbulent conditions in the mortgage industry, distress in the credit markets or other times when we will need focused support and assistance from our Manager and Ellington employees, other entities for which Ellington serves as a manager, or its accounts will likewise require greater focus and attention, placing our Manager and Ellington’s resources in high demand. In such situations, we may not receive the necessary support and assistance we require or would otherwise receive if we were internally managed or if Ellington did not act as a manager for other entities.

We, directly or through Ellington, may obtain confidential information about the companies or securities in which we have invested or may invest. If we do possess confidential information about such companies or securities, there may be restrictions on our ability to dispose of, increase the amount of, or otherwise take action with respect to the securities of such companies. Our Manager’s and Ellington’s management of other accounts could create a conflict of interest to the extent our Manager or Ellington is aware of material non-public information concerning potential investment decisions. We have implemented compliance procedures and practices designed to ensure that investment decisions are not made while in possession of material non-public information. We cannot assure you, however, that these procedures and practices will be effective. In addition, this conflict and these procedures and practices may limit the freedom of our Manager to make potentially profitable investments, which could have an adverse effect on our operations. These limitations imposed by access to confidential information could therefore materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The Manager Group currently owns approximately 20.6% of our outstanding common shares and LTIP units. In evaluating opportunities for us and other management strategies, this may lead our Manager to emphasize certain asset acquisition, disposition or management objectives over others, such as balancing risk or capital preservation objectives against return objectives. This could increase the risks, or decrease the returns, of your investment.

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

Our management agreement with our Manager was negotiated between related parties, and its terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party. Various potential and actual conflicts of interest may arise from the activities of Ellington and its affiliates by virtue of the fact that our Manager is controlled by Ellington.

Termination of our management agreement without cause is subject to several conditions which may make such a termination difficult and costly. The management agreement, which was amended and restated effective

40

Table of Contents

July 1, 2009, and was amended and restated again effective October 1, 2010, has a current term that expires on December 31, 2011, and will be automatically renewed for successive one-year terms thereafter unless notice of non-renewal is delivered by either party to the other party at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the then current term. The management agreement provides that it may be terminated by us based on performance upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors, or by a vote of the holders of at least a majority of our outstanding common shares, based either upon unsatisfactory performance by our Manager that is materially detrimental to us or upon a determination by the Board of Directors that the management fee payable to our Manager is not fair, subject to our Manager’s right to prevent such a termination by accepting a mutually acceptable reduction of management fees. In the event we terminate the management agreement as discussed above or elect not to renew the management agreement, we will be required to pay our Manager a termination fee equal to the amount of three times the sum of the average annual base management fee and the average annual incentive fee earned by our Manager during the 24-month period immediately preceding the date of termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter prior to the date of termination. These provisions will increase the effective cost to us of terminating the management agreement, thereby adversely affecting our ability to terminate our Manager without cause.

Our Manager’s failure to identify and acquire assets that meet our asset criteria or perform its responsibilities under the management agreement could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Our ability to achieve our objectives depends on our Manager’s ability to identify and acquire assets that meet our asset criteria. Accomplishing our objectives is largely a function of our Manager’s structuring of our investment process, our access to financing on acceptable terms and general market conditions. Our shareholders will not have input into our investment decisions. All of these factors increase the uncertainty, and thus the risk, of investing in our common shares. The senior management team of our Manager has substantial responsibilities under the management agreement. In order to implement certain strategies, our Manager may need to hire, train, supervise and manage new employees successfully. Any failure to manage our future growth effectively could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

If our Manager ceases to be our Manager pursuant to the management agreement, our reverse repo and our derivative counterparties may cease doing business with us.

If our Manager ceases to be our Manager, it could constitute an event of default or early termination event under many of our reverse repo or derivative transaction agreements, upon which our counterparties would have the right to terminate their agreements with us. If our Manager ceases to be our Manager for any reason, including upon the non-renewal of our management agreement which has a current term that expires on December 31, 2011, and we are unable to obtain financing or enter into or maintain derivative transactions, our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders may be materially adversely affected.

We do not own the Ellington brand or trademark, but may use the brand and trademark as well as our logo pursuant to the terms of a license granted by Ellington.

Ellington has licensed the “Ellington” brand, trademark and logo to us for so long as our Manager or another affiliate of Ellington continues to act as our Manager. We do not own the brand, trademark or logo that we will use in our business and may be unable to protect this intellectual property against infringement from third parties. Ellington retains the right to continue using the “Ellington” brand and trademark. We will further be unable to preclude Ellington from licensing or transferring the ownership of the “Ellington” brand and trademark to third parties, some of whom may compete against us. Consequently, we will be unable to prevent any damage to goodwill that may occur as a result of the activities of Ellington or others. Furthermore, in the event our Manager or another affiliate of Ellington ceases to act as our Manager, or in the event Ellington terminates the license we

41

Table of Contents

will be required to change our name and trademark. Any of these events could disrupt our recognition in the marketplace, damage any goodwill we may have generated and otherwise harm our business. Finally, the license is a domestic license in the United States only and does not give us any right to use the “Ellington” brand, trademark and logo overseas even though we expect to use the brand, trademark and logo overseas. Our use of the “Ellington” brand, trademark and logo overseas will therefore be unlicensed and could expose us to a claim of infringement.

Risks Related To Our Common Shares

The market for our common shares may be limited, which may adversely affect the price at which our common shares trade and make it difficult to sell our common shares.

While our common shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, such listing does not provide any assurance as to:

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

The stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market price and trading volume of many companies in industries similar to ours. As a result, the market price of our common shares may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations. In addition, the trading volume in our common shares may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. We cannot assure you that the market price of our common shares will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. Some of the factors that could negatively affect our share price or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our common shares include:

Future offerings of debt or equity securities may adversely affect the market value of common shares.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making offerings of debt or additional offerings of equity securities, including commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes and

42

Table of Contents

classes of preferred shares. If we decide to issue senior securities in the future, it is likely that they will be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Holders of senior securities may be granted specific rights, including the right to hold a perfected security interest in certain of our assets, the right to accelerate payments due under an indenture, rights to restrict dividend payments and rights to require approval to sell assets. Additionally, any convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common shares and may result in dilution of owners of our common shares. We and, indirectly, our shareholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and preferred shares and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our common shares. Additional equity offerings may dilute the holdings of our existing shareholders or reduce the market value of our common shares, or both. Our preferred shares, if issued, could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend payments that could limit our ability to make a dividend distribution to the holders of our common shares. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, holders of our common shares bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market value of our common shares and diluting their share holdings in us.

Future sales of our common shares could have an adverse effect on our share price.

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

As of March 15, 2011 we have 16,504,742 common shares outstanding. Our directors and executive officers and the Manager Group have entered into lock-up agreements covering 3,499,492 of our common shares and LTIP units outstanding, but these lock-up agreements expire on April 5, 2011. These lock-up agreements also cover any shares acquired by our directors and executive officers and the Manager Group during the lock-up period. When these lock-up agreements expire, additional common shares will become available for sale into the market, which could reduce the market value for our common shares.

Our shareholders may not receive dividends or dividends may not grow over time.

We have not established a minimum dividend payment level and our ability to pay dividends may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors described herein. All dividends will be declared at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on our earnings, our financial condition and other factors as our Board of Directors may deem relevant from time to time. Our board is under no obligation or requirement to declare a dividend. Among the factors that could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders are:

A change in any one of these factors could affect our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. We cannot assure you that we will achieve results that will allow us to pay a specified level of dividends or year-to-year increases in dividends.

Market interest rates may have an effect on the trading value of our shares.

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our common shares is our dividend rate or earnings as a percentage of our common share price, as compared to market interest rates. If

43

Table of Contents

market interest rates increase, prospective investors may demand a higher dividend or earnings rate or seek higher-yielding alternative debt or equity investments. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and other capital market conditions can affect the market value of our common shares independent of the effects such conditions may have on our portfolio. For instance, if interest rates rise, it is likely that the market price of our common shares will decrease as market rates on interest-bearing securities, such as bonds, increase.

Investing in our common shares involves a high degree of risk.

The assets we purchase in accordance with our objectives may result in a higher amount of risk than other alternative asset acquisition options. The assets we acquire may be highly speculative and aggressive and may be subject to a variety of risks, including credit risk, prepayment risk, interest rate risk and market value risks. As a result, an investment in our common shares may not be suitable for someone with lower risk tolerance.

Risks Related To Our Organization and Structure

Our operating agreement and management agreement contain provisions that may inhibit potential acquisition bids that shareholders may consider favorable, and the market price of our common shares may be lower as a result.

Our operating agreement contains provisions that have an anti-takeover effect and inhibit a change in our Board of Directors. These provisions include the following:

Certain provisions of the management agreement also could make it more difficult for third parties to acquire control of us by various means, including limitations on our right to terminate the management agreement and a requirement that, under certain circumstances, we make a substantial payment to our Manager in the event of a termination.

Our operating agreement, subject to certain exceptions, contains restrictions on the amount of our shares that a person may own and may prohibit certain entities from owning our shares. Although we do not currently have any subsidiaries that qualify as REITs, it is possible that we may acquire or form a REIT subsidiary in the future. Accordingly, in order to ensure that we are able to satisfy the REIT ownership requirements should we acquire or form a REIT subsidiary in the future, our operating agreement provides that (subject to certain exceptions described below) no person may own, or be deemed to own by virtue of the attribution provisions of the Code, more than 9.8% of the aggregate value or number (whichever is more restrictive) of our outstanding shares.

Any person who acquires or attempts or intends to acquire beneficial or constructive ownership of our shares that will or may violate any of the foregoing restrictions on transferability and ownership, or who is the intended transferee of our common shares which are transferred to the trust (as described below), will be required to give written notice immediately to us, or in the case of proposed or attempted transactions will be required to give at least 15 days written notice to us, and provide us with such other information as we may request in order to determine the effect of such transfer, including, without limitation, the effect on the qualification as a REIT of any potential REIT subsidiary we acquire or form in the future.

Our Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, may exempt any person from the foregoing restrictions. Any person seeking such an exemption must provide to our Board of Directors such representations, covenants and

44

Table of Contents

undertakings as our Board of Directors may deem appropriate. Our Board of Directors may also condition any such exemption on the receipt of a ruling from the IRS or an opinion of counsel as it deems appropriate. Our Board of Directors has granted an exemption from this limitation to Ellington, certain affiliated entities of Ellington and certain non-affiliates, subject to certain conditions.

Our rights and the rights of our shareholders to take action against our directors and officers or against our Manager or Ellington are limited, which could limit your recourse in the event actions are taken that are not in your best interests.

Our operating agreement limits the liability of our directors and officers to us and our shareholders for money damages, except for liability resulting from:

We have entered into indemnification agreements with our directors and officers that obligate us to indemnify them to the maximum extent permitted by Delaware law. In addition, our operating agreement authorizes us to obligate our company to indemnify our present and former directors and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Delaware law. Our operating agreement requires us to indemnify each present or former director or officer, to the maximum extent permitted by Delaware 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 fund the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers. See “Description of Shares—Operating Agreement—Limitations on Liability and Indemnification of Our Directors and Officers” in our IPO prospectus.

Our management agreement with our Manager requires us to indemnify our Manager and its affiliates against any and all claims and demands arising out of claims by third parties caused by acts or omissions of our Manager and its affiliates not constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of our Manager’s duties under the management agreement.

Due to the liability limitations contained in our operating agreements and our indemnification arrangements with our directors and officers and our Manager, our and our shareholders’ rights to take action against our directors and officers and our Manager are limited, which could limit your recourse in the event actions are taken that are not in your best interests.

Maintenance of our exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act imposes significant limitations on our operations.

We intend to conduct our operations through various wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries in a manner such that neither we nor those subsidiaries are subject to regulation under the Investment Company Act. The securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, together with other investment securities we may own, cannot exceed a combined value of 40% of the value of all our assets (excluding U.S. Government securities and cash) on an unconsolidated basis. This requirement limits the types of businesses in which we may engage and the assets we may hold. Our wholly-owned subsidiary, EF Mortgage LLC, relies on the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) under the Investment Company Act. Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act is designed for entities “primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” This exclusion generally requires that at least 55% of the entity’s assets consist of qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of the entity’s assets consist of qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets. These requirements limit the assets we can own and the timing of sales and purchases of our assets.

45

Table of Contents

To classify the assets held by EF Mortgage LLC as qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, we rely on no-action letters and other guidance published by the SEC staff regarding those kinds of assets, as well as upon our analyses (in consultation with outside counsel) of guidance published with respect to other types of assets. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of companies similar to ours, or the guidance from the Division of Investment Management of the SEC regarding the treatment of assets as qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. To the extent that the SEC staff provides more specific guidance regarding any of the matters bearing upon our exemption from the need to register under the Investment Company Act, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. Any additional guidance from the SEC staff could further inhibit our ability to pursue the strategies that we have chosen. Furthermore, although we intend to monitor the assets of EF Mortgage LLC regularly, there can be no assurance that EF Mortgage LLC will be able to maintain this exemption from registration. Any of the foregoing could require us to adjust our strategy, which could limit our ability to make certain investments or require us to sell assets in a manner, at a price or at a time that we otherwise would not have chosen. This could negatively affect the value of our common shares, the sustainability of our business model and our ability to make distributions.

If we were required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we would be subject to the restrictions imposed by the Investment Company Act, which would require us to make material changes to our strategy.

If we are deemed to be an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we would be required to materially restructure our activities or to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions and results of operations. In connection with any such restructuring, we may be required to sell portfolio assets at a time we otherwise might not choose to do so, and we may incur losses in connection with such sales. Further, our Manager may unilaterally terminate the management agreement if we become regulated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. Further, if it were established that we were an unregistered investment company, there would be a risk that we would be subject to monetary penalties and injunctive relief in an action brought by the Commission, that we would be unable to enforce contracts with third parties and that third parties could seek to obtain rescission of transactions undertaken during the period it was established that we were an unregistered investment company.

Federal Income Tax Risks

If we fail to satisfy the “qualifying income exception” under the tax rules for publicly traded partnerships, all of our income will be subject to an entity-level tax.

We have operated, and intend to continue to operate, so that we qualify as a partnership, and not as an association or a publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In general, if a partnership is “publicly traded” (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code), it will be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. A publicly traded partnership will, however, be treated as a partnership, and not as a corporation, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, so long as at least 90% of its gross income for each taxable year constitutes “qualifying income” within the meaning of Section 7704(d) of the Code and it would not be included in the definition of a regulated investment company, or RIC, under Section 851(a) of the Code if it were a domestic corporation (which generally applies to entities required to register under the Investment Company Act). We refer to this exception as the “qualifying income exception.” Qualifying income generally includes rents, dividends, interest (to the extent such interest is neither derived from the “conduct of a financial or insurance business” nor based, directly or indirectly, upon “income or profits” of any person), and capital gains from the sale or other disposition of stocks, bonds and real property. Qualifying income also includes other income derived from the business of investing in, among other things, stocks and securities.

46

Table of Contents

If we fail to satisfy the “qualifying income exception” described above, we would be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In that event, items of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit would not pass through to holders of our common shares and such holders would be treated for U.S. federal (and certain state and local) income tax purposes as shareholders in a corporation. We would be required to pay income tax at regular corporate rates on all of our income. In addition, we would likely be liable for state and local income and/or franchise taxes on all of our income. Distributions to holders of our common shares would constitute ordinary dividend income taxable to such holders to the extent of our earnings and profits, and these distributions would not be deductible by us. Additionally, distributions paid to non-U.S. holders of our common shares would be subject to U.S. federal withholding taxes at the rate of 30% (or such lower rate provided by an applicable tax treaty). Thus, if we were treated as a corporation, such treatment would result in a material reduction in cash flow and after-tax returns for holders of our common shares and thus would result in a substantial reduction in the value of our common shares.

Holders of our common shares will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on their share of our taxable income, regardless of whether or when they receive any cash distributions from us, and may recognize income in excess of our cash distributions.

We intend to continue to operate so as to qualify, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as a partnership and not as an association or a publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation. Holders of our common shares are subject to U.S. federal income taxation and, in some cases, state, local and foreign income taxation, on their allocable share of our items of income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit, regardless of whether or when they receive cash distributions. In addition, certain of our assets may produce taxable income without corresponding distributions of cash to us or produce taxable income prior to or following the receipt of cash relating to such income. Consequently, it is possible that the U.S. federal income tax liability of shareholders with respect to their respective allocable shares of our earnings in a particular taxable year could exceed the cash distributions we make to shareholders with respect to that taxable year, thus requiring out-of-pocket tax payments by shareholders. Furthermore, if we did not make cash distributions with respect to a taxable year, holders of our common shares would still have a tax liability attributable to their allocation of our taxable income for that taxable year. Our present intention is to make quarterly and special distributions to our common shareholders so that approximately 100% of our net income attributable to our common shares each calendar year, beginning with the 2010 calendar year, has been distributed prior to April of the subsequent calendar year, subject to potential adjustments for changes in common shares outstanding and certain other factors.

The ability of holders of our common shares to deduct certain expenses incurred by us may be limited.

We believe that the expenses incurred by us, including base management fees and incentive fees paid to our Manager, will generally not be treated as “miscellaneous itemized deductions” and will be deductible as ordinary trade or business expenses. In general, “miscellaneous itemized deductions” may be deducted by a holder of our common shares that is an individual, estate or trust only to the extent that such deductions exceed, in the aggregate, 2% of such holder’s adjusted gross income. In addition, “miscellaneous itemized deductions” are also not deductible in determining the alternative minimum tax liability of a holder. There also may be limitations on the deductibility of itemized deductions by individuals whose adjusted gross income exceeds a specified amount, adjusted annually for inflation. Although we believe that our expenses will not be treated as “miscellaneous itemized deductions,” there can be no assurance that the IRS will not successfully challenge that treatment. In that event, a holder’s inability to deduct all or a portion of such expenses could result in an amount of taxable income to such holder with respect to us that exceeds the amount of cash actually distributed to such holder for the year.

47

Table of Contents

Holders of our common shares may recognize a greater taxable gain (or a smaller tax loss) on a disposition of our shares than expected because of the treatment of our debt under the partnership tax accounting rules.

We incur debt for a variety of reasons, including for acquisitions as well as other purposes. Under partnership tax accounting principles (which apply to us), our debt is generally allocable to holders of our common shares, who will realize the benefit of including their allocable share of our debt in the tax basis of their shares. A holder’s tax basis in our common shares will be adjusted for, among other things, distributions of cash and allocations of our losses, if any. At the time a holder of our common shares sells its shares, the holder’s amount realized on the sale will include not only the sales price of the shares but also such holder’s portion of our debt allocable to those shares (which is treated as proceeds from the sale of those shares). Depending on the nature of our activities after having incurred the debt, and the utilization of the borrowed funds, a later sale of our common shares could result in a larger taxable gain (or a smaller tax loss) than anticipated.

Tax-exempt holders of our common shares will likely recognize significant amounts of “unrelated business taxable income,” the amount of which may be material.

An organization that is otherwise exempt from U.S. federal income tax is nonetheless subject to taxation with respect to its “unrelated business taxable income,” or “UBTI”. Because we have incurred “acquisition indebtedness” with respect to certain securities we hold (either directly or indirectly through subsidiaries that are treated as partnerships or are disregarded for U.S. federal income tax purposes), a proportionate share of a holder’s income from us with respect to such securities will be treated as UBTI. Accordingly, tax-exempt holders of our common shares will likely recognize significant amounts of UBTI. For certain types of tax-exempt entities, the receipt of any UBTI might have adverse consequences. Tax-exempt holders of our common shares are strongly urged to consult their tax advisors regarding the tax consequences of owning our common shares.

There can be no assurance that the IRS will not assert successfully that some portion of our income is properly treated as effectively connected income with respect to non-U.S. holders of our common shares.

While it is expected that our method of operation will not result in the generation of significant amounts of income treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business with respect to non-U.S. holders of our common shares, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not assert successfully that some portion of our income is properly treated as effectively connected income with respect to such non-U.S. holders. To the extent our income is treated as effectively connected income, non-U.S. holders generally would be required to (i) file a U.S. federal income tax return for such year reporting their allocable portion, if any, of our income or loss effectively connected with such trade or business and (ii) pay U.S. federal income tax at graduated U.S. tax rates on any such income. Additionally, we would be required to withhold tax (currently at a rate of 35%) on a non-U.S. holder’s allocable share of any effectively connected income. Non-U.S. holders that are corporations also would be required to pay branch profits tax at a 30% rate (or lower rate provided by applicable treaty). To the extent our income is treated as effectively connected income, it may also be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of the qualifying income exception.

If the IRS challenges our election to mark our assets to market for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the taxable income allocated to the holders of our common shares would be adjusted (possibly retroactively) and our ability to provide tax information on a timely basis could be negatively affected.

We intend to continue to qualify as a trader in securities and have elected to mark-to-market our positions in securities that we hold as a trader, in accordance with Section 475(f) of the Code. There are limited authorities under Section 475(f) of the Code as to what constitutes a trader for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Under other sections of the Code, the status of a trader in securities depends on all of the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the income derived from the taxpayer’s activities, the frequency, extent and regularity of the taxpayer’s securities transactions, and the taxpayer’s investment intent. Therefore, there can be no assurance

48

Table of Contents

that we have qualified or will continue to qualify as a trader in securities eligible for the mark-to-market election. We have not received an opinion from counsel or a ruling from the IRS regarding our qualification as a trader. If our eligibility for, or our application of, the mark-to-market election were successfully challenged by the IRS, in whole or in part, it could, depending on the circumstances, result in retroactive (or prospective) changes in the amount of taxable income recognized by us and allocated to the holders of our common shares. An inability to utilize the mark-to-market election might also have an adverse effect on our ability to provide tax information to you on a timely basis. The IRS could also challenge any conventions that we use in computing, or in allocating among holders of our common shares, any gain or loss resulting from the mark-to-market election. See “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations—Taxation of Holders of Our Common Shares—Allocation of Profits and Losses” in our IPO prospectus.

In addition, we intend to take the position that our mark-to-market gain or loss, and any gain or loss on the actual disposition of marked-to-market assets, should be treated as ordinary income or loss. However, because the law is unclear as to the treatment of assets that are held for investment, and the determination of which assets are held for investment, the IRS could take the position that the mark-to-market gain or loss attributable to certain assets should be treated as capital gain or loss and not as ordinary gain or loss. In that case, we will not be able to offset our non-cash ordinary income with any resulting capital losses from such assets, which could increase the amount of our non-cash taxable income.

The IRS may challenge our allocations of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit.

Our operating agreement provides for the allocation of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit among the holders of our common shares. The rules regarding partnership allocations are complex. It is possible that the IRS could successfully challenge the allocations in the operating agreement and reallocate items of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit in a manner which reduces benefits or increases income allocable to holders of our common shares. See “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations—Taxation of Holders of Our Common Shares—Allocation of Profits and Losses” in our IPO prospectus.

Complying with certain tax-related requirements may cause us to forego otherwise attractive business opportunities.

To be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and not as an association or publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation, we must satisfy the qualifying income exception, which requires that at least 90% of our gross income each taxable year consist of interest, dividends, capital gains and other types of “qualifying income.” Interest income will not be qualifying income for the qualifying income exception if it is derived from “the conduct of a financial or insurance business.” This requirement limits our ability to originate loans or acquire loans originated by our Manager and its affiliates. In addition, we intend to operate so as to avoid generating a significant amount of income that is treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business with respect to non-U.S. holders. In order to comply with these requirements, we (or our subsidiaries) may be required to invest through foreign or domestic corporations or forego attractive business opportunities. Thus, compliance with these requirements may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The IRS Schedules K-1 we will provide will be significantly more complicated than the IRS Forms 1099 provided by REITs and regular corporations, and holders of our common shares may be required to request an extension of time to file their tax returns.

Holders of our common shares are required to take into account their allocable share of items of our income, gain, loss, deduction and credit for our taxable year ending within or with their taxable year. We will use reasonable efforts to furnish holders of our common shares with tax information (including IRS Schedule K-1) as promptly as possible, which describes their allocable share of such items for our preceding taxable year. However, we may not be able to provide holders of our common shares with tax information on a timely basis. Because holders of our common shares will be required to report their allocable share of each item of our

49

Table of Contents

income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit on their tax returns, tax reporting for holders of our common shares will be significantly more complicated than for shareholders in a REIT or a regular corporation. In addition, delivery of this information to holders of our common shares will be subject to delay in the event of, among other reasons, the late receipt of any necessary tax information from an investment in which we hold an interest. It is therefore possible that, in any taxable year, holders of our common shares will need to apply for extensions of time to file their tax returns.

Our structure involves complex provisions of U.S. federal income tax law for which no clear precedent or authority may be available, and which is subject to potential change, possibly on a retroactive basis. Any such change could result in adverse consequences to the holders of our common shares.

The U.S. federal income tax treatment of holders of our common shares depends in some instances on determinations of fact and interpretations of complex provisions of U.S. federal income tax law for which no clear precedent or authority may be available. The U.S. federal income tax rules are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and the IRS, resulting in changes in and revised interpretations of established concepts. Also, the IRS pays close attention to the proper application of tax laws to partnerships and investments in foreign entities. The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in our common shares may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial interpretation at any time, and any such action may affect investments and commitments we have previously made. We and holders of our common shares could be adversely affected by any such change in, or any new tax law, regulation or interpretation. Our operating agreement permits our Board of Directors to modify (subject to certain exceptions) the operating agreement from time to time, without the consent of the holders of our common shares. These modifications may address, among other things, certain changes in U.S. federal income tax regulations, legislation or interpretation. In some circumstances, such revisions could have an adverse impact on some or all of the holders of our common shares. Moreover, we intend to apply certain assumptions and conventions in an attempt to comply with applicable rules and to report income, gain, deduction, loss and credit to holders of our common shares in a manner that reflects their distributive share of our items, but these assumptions and conventions may not be in compliance with all aspects of applicable tax requirements. It is possible that the IRS will assert successfully that the conventions and assumptions we use do not satisfy the technical requirements of the Code and/or Treasury Regulations and could require that items of income, gain, deduction, loss or credit be adjusted or reallocated in a manner that adversely affects holders of our common shares.

None.

We do not own any properties. Our principal offices are located in leased space at 53 Forest Avenue, Old Greenwich, CT 06870. The offices of our Manager and Ellington are at the same location. As part of our management agreement, our Manager is responsible for providing offices necessary for all operations, and accordingly, all lease responsibilities belong to our Manager.

Neither we nor our Manager is currently subject to any legal proceedings that we or our Manager considers to be material. Nevertheless, we, our Manager and Ellington operate in highly regulated markets that currently are under intense regulatory scrutiny, and Ellington and its affiliates have received, and we expect in the future that they may receive, inquiries and requests for documents and information from various federal, state and foreign regulators. These have included the inquiries and requests that are described in the risk factors included in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K under the caption “We or Ellington or its affiliates may be subject to regulatory inquiries or proceedings.” Ellington has advised us that, at the present time, it is not aware

50

Table of Contents

that any material legal proceeding against Ellington and its affiliates is contemplated in connection with any of these inquiries or requests. However, we believe that scrutiny of CDO market participants (including large CDO collateral managers such as Ellington) has intensified. We believe this intensified scrutiny increases the risk of additional inquiries and requests from regulatory or enforcement agencies. Ellington and we cannot provide any assurance that these inquiries and requests will not result in further investigation of or the initiation of a proceeding against Ellington or its affiliates or that, if any such investigation or proceeding were to arise, it would not materially adversely affect our company.

51

Table of Contents

PART II

Market Information

Our common shares have been listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “EFC” since October 8, 2010. The high and low sales prices for our common shares as reported by the NYSE for the period from October 8, 2010 to December 31, 2010 were $22.68 and $21.05, respectively.

The closing price for our common shares, as reported by the NYSE on March 15, 2011, was $23.22.

Holders of Our Common Shares

As of March 10, 2011, we had 62 shareholders of record. Most of our common shares are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of shareholders.

Dividends

Our present intention is to pay quarterly and special dividends to our common shareholders so that approximately 100% of our net income attributable to our common shares each calendar year has been distributed prior to April of the subsequent calendar year, subject to potential adjustments for changes in common shares outstanding. In setting our dividends, our Board of Directors takes into account, among other things, our earnings, our financial condition, our working capital needs and new investment opportunities. In particular, we may deviate from our dividend policy when we believe it is prudent to do so for liquidity management purposes, during financial crises or extreme market dislocations, or in order to take advantage of what we deem to be extraordinary investment opportunities. Furthermore, it is possible that some of our future financing arrangements could contain provisions restricting our ability to pay dividends. In addition, our ability to pay dividends is subject to certain restrictions under the Delaware LLC Act. Under the Delaware LLC Act, a limited liability company generally is not permitted to pay a dividend if, after giving effect to the dividend, the liabilities of the company will exceed the value of the company’s assets. Shareholders generally will be subject to U.S. federal income tax (and any applicable state and local taxes) on their respective allocable shares of our net taxable income regardless of the timing or amount of dividend we pay to our shareholders.

The declaration of dividends to our shareholders and the amount of such dividends are at the discretion of our Board of Directors. Our dividend policy for the 2009 calendar year was to pay quarterly and special dividends to our common shareholders so that at least 50% of our net income attributable to our common shares was distributed. The dividends we declared for the second, third and fourth quarters of 2009, as shown in the table below, represented in the aggregate approximately 50% of our net income attributable to our common shares for the 2009 calendar year.

52

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the dividends per share we have paid to our shareholders with respect to the periods indicated. We did not pay any dividends prior to 2009.

We cannot assure you that we will pay any future dividends to our shareholders and the dividends set forth in the table above are not intended to be indicative of the amount and timing of future dividends, if any.

We generally refer to payments made to our shareholders with respect to our common shares as “dividends” for purposes of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, those payments will be treated as distributions from a partnership.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities

On February 11, 2010, we issued 2,500 common shares in exchange for LTIP units held by one of our directors. This issuance was exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act based on the exemption provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act.

On February 17, 2010, we issued 9,082 common shares to our Manager as part of its incentive fee pursuant to our management agreement with our Manager. The issuance was exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act based on the exemption provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act.

On May 10, 2010, we issued 1,975 common shares to our Manager as part of its incentive fee pursuant to our management agreement with our Manager. The issuance was exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act based on the exemption provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act.

On October 1, 2010, we granted 1,250 LTIP units to Thomas Robards, 1,250 LTIP units to Ronald I. Simon, Ph.D., and 1,250 LTIP units to Edward Resendez as compensation for serving as directors. These grants were made pursuant to our 2007 Individual Incentive Plan and such grants were exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act based on the exemption provided in Rule 701 promulgated under the Securities Act.

On November 15, 2010, we issued 11,422 common shares to our Manager as part of its incentive fee pursuant to our management agreement with our Manager. This issuance was exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act.

Pursuant to our 2007 Individual Incentive Plan, on December 15, 2010, we granted 2,000 LTIP units to Lisa Mumford, our dedicated Chief Financial Officer, and 500 LTIP units to another employee of our Manager. The LTIP units are subject to forfeiture restrictions that will lapse one year from the date of grant. Such grants were exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act based on the exemption provided in Rule 701 promulgated under the Securities Act.

On December 31, 2010, we issued 1,250 common shares in exchange for LTIP units held by one of our directors. This issuance was exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act based on the exemption provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act.

53

Table of Contents

On February 17, 2011, we issued 6,400 common shares to our Manager as part of its incentive fee pursuant to our management agreement with our Manager. This issuance was exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act based on the exemption provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act.

Use of Proceeds from Registered Securities

On October 14, 2010, we closed our initial public offering of common shares pursuant to which we sold 4,500,000 common shares to the public at a public offering price of $22.50 per share. We raised approximately $101.3 million in gross proceeds, resulting in net proceeds to us of approximately $94.7 million, after deducting approximately $2.9 million in underwriting discounts and approximately $3.6 million in other expenses relating to the initial public offering.

As of the date of this Annual Report, we had fully invested the proceeds from our initial public offering. These proceeds were invested in a manner substantially consistent with that described in our IPO prospectus dated October 7, 2010.

Performance

The following graph provides a comparison of the cumulative total return on our common shares to the cumulative total return on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Composite Stock Price Index (the “S&P 500”) and the FTSE National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts Mortgage REIT Index (the “FTSE NAREIT MREIT Index”). The comparison is for the period from October 8, 2010, the day our common shares commenced trading on the NYSE, to December 31, 2010, and assumes in each case a $100 investment on October 8, 2010 and the reinvestment of dividends.

The actual cumulative total returns shown on the graph above are as follows:

54

Table of Contents

The following table presents selected consolidated financial information as of December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007, and for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, and for the period from August 17, 2007 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2007. The consolidated financial information presented below as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, has been derived from our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report. The consolidated financial information as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for the period from August 17, 2007 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2007, was derived from our historical audited consolidated financial statements not included in this Annual Report. Because we only operated our business for a portion of the year ended December 31, 2007, a direct comparison of our operating results for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 to our operating results for the period from August 17, 2007 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2007 may be of limited use.

Since the information presented below is only selected financial data and does not provide all of the information contained in our historical consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report, including the related notes, you should read it in conjunction with “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and our historical consolidated financial statements, including the related notes, included in this Annual Report.

55

Table of Contents

56

Table of Contents

In this annual report on Form 10-K, except where the context suggests otherwise, “EFC,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Ellington Financial LLC and its subsidiaries, our “Manager” refers to Ellington Financial Management LLC, our external manager, and “Ellington” refers to Ellington Management Group, L.L.C. and its affiliated investment advisory firms.

Executive Summary

We are a specialty finance company that specializes in acquiring and managing mortgage-related assets, including non-Agency RMBS, Agency RMBS, mortgage-related derivatives, CMBS and commercial mortgages or other commercial real estate debt, as well as corporate debt and equity securities and derivatives. We also may opportunistically acquire and manage other types of mortgage-related and financial asset classes, such as residential whole mortgage loans, ABS backed by consumer and commercial assets and non-mortgage-related derivatives. We are externally managed and advised by our Manager, an affiliate of Ellington. Ellington is also a registered investment advisor with a 16-year history of investing in a broad spectrum of MBS and related derivatives.

We completed our initial capitalization in August 2007, pursuant to which we sold 12,500,000 common shares for aggregate net proceeds of approximately $239.7 million.

On October 14, 2010, we closed our initial public offering of common shares representing limited liability company interests, or common shares, pursuant to which we sold 4,500,000 common shares to the public at a public offering price of $22.50 per share. We raised approximately $101.3 million in gross proceeds, resulting in net proceeds to us of approximately $94.7 million, after deducting approximately $2.9 million in underwriting discounts and approximately $3.6 million in other expenses relating to the initial public offering.

Our primary objective is to generate attractive, risk-adjusted total returns for our shareholders. We seek to attain this objective by utilizing an opportunistic strategy to make investments, without restriction as to ratings, structure or position in the capital structure, that we believe compensate us appropriately for the risks associated with them rather than targeting a specific yield. Our evaluation of the potential risk-adjusted return of any potential investment typically involves weighing the potential returns of such investment under a variety of economic scenarios against the perceived likelihood of the various scenarios. Potential investments subject to greater risk (such as those with lower credit ratings and/or those with a lower position in the capital structure) will generally require a higher potential return to be attractive in comparison to investment alternatives with lower potential return and a lower degree of risk. However, at any particular point in time, depending on how we perceive the market’s pricing of risk both generally and across sectors, we may favor higher-risk assets or we may favor lower-risk assets, or a combination of the two in the interests of portfolio diversification or other considerations.

As of December 31, 2010, we believe that our non-Agency RMBS strategies represented the primary drivers of our risk and return, and we expect that they will continue to do so over the near term. However, we also continue to maintain a highly leveraged portfolio of Agency RMBS to take advantage of opportunities in that market sector and to maintain our exclusion from regulation as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. As discussed below in “—Liquidity and Valuation,” financing for non-Agency RMBS has become more readily available over the past 12 months, but currently we employ only low levels of leverage with respect to the non-Agency RMBS in our portfolio. We currently finance our purchases of Agency RMBS and non-Agency RMBS using reverse repo agreements, which we account for as collateralized borrowings. Unless we acquire very substantial amounts of whole mortgage loans, we expect that we will always maintain some core amount of Agency RMBS to maintain our exclusion from regulation as an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

57

Table of Contents

Our strategy is intended to take advantage of opportunities in the current credit environment. We intend to adjust our strategy to changing market conditions by shifting our asset allocations across various asset classes as credit and liquidity trends evolve over time. We believe that this strategy, combined with Ellington’s experience, will help us generate more consistent returns on our capital throughout changing market cycles.

As of December 31, 2010, outstanding borrowings under reverse repurchase agreements were $777.8 million and our debt-to-equity ratio was 1.93 to 1. Our debt-to-equity ratio does not account for liabilities other than debt financings. Of our total borrowings outstanding, approximately 80.4% or $625.0 million relates to our Agency holdings with the remaining related to our non-Agency holdings.

We opportunistically hedge our credit risk and interest rate risk; however, at any point in time we may choose not to hedge all or a portion of these risks, and we will generally not hedge those risks that we believe are appropriate for us to take at such time, or that we believe would be impractical or prohibitively expensive to hedge.

We believe that we have been organized and have operated so that we have qualified, and will continue to qualify, to be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a partnership and not as an association or a publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation.

Trends and Recent Market Developments

Market Disruption in RMBS

We commenced operations in August 2007 in the midst of challenging market conditions which affected both (i) the credit performance and valuations of assets we targeted at that time (especially non-Agency RMBS) and (ii) the cost and availability of financing for those assets (primarily, reverse repos and securitizations). After reviewing the market conditions that existed at that time, we decided to deploy a relatively modest amount of our capital in late 2007 and also began to adapt the strategy for the portfolio in light of market conditions.

In early 2008, as credit availability diminished and valuations of non-Agency RMBS came under significant pressure, we began slowly purchasing primarily senior tranches of non-Agency RMBS while simultaneously aggressively hedging the credit risk in these securities through a combination of single name credit default swaps referencing primarily mezzanine tranches of non-Agency RMBS, positions with respect to certain vintages and tranches of the ABX indices and selected other hedges. The market for non-Agency RMBS was impacted by several significant events during the first quarter of 2008, including the forced liquidation of several multi-billion dollar RMBS portfolios by heavily leveraged investors and the failure of Bear Stearns & Co. in March 2008. These market events also severely restricted the financing available for non-Agency RMBS, as many lenders curtailed their lending against these types of securities.

Poor credit performance of non-Agency RMBS and limited availability of financing for such assets continued throughout 2008 and into 2009, influenced by many market events including the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Meanwhile, home price declines and increases in loss severities upon default continued through the second quarter of 2009. Since the second quarter of 2009, market conditions have begun to modestly improve as witnessed by the increased availability of financing for non-Agency assets and the improved performance across several sectors of the residential mortgage-backed securities markets.

Recent Developments

Starting with the announcement of the Public-Private Investment Program, or “PPIP”, sponsored by the federal government, towards the end of the first quarter of 2009, and along with the general improvements in most global financial markets since that time, liquidity and prices have improved in the RMBS markets, presumably reflecting, among other things, market participants’ pricing better economic scenarios into, and demanding lower target returns on, their investments.

58

Table of Contents

Meanwhile, there have also been modest improvements in fundamental factors affecting RMBS since the second half of 2009, including slowing or modest reversals in many regions of both declining home prices and increasing loan loss severities upon default. However, these improvements seem to have been somewhat undercut due to the large overhang of shadow inventory in the housing market. This inventory overhang is the result of the substantial number of homeowners who remain delinquent on their outstanding mortgages and foreclosures that are stalled in court. There also exist many homes that were built prior to the housing crisis, especially in 2006 and 2007, in locations that are no longer considered desirable. See “Credit Quality” below.

Non-Agency Securitization Market

In April 2010, a $238 million non-Agency RMBS securitization was completed, marking the first such securitization (other than re-securitizations) since August 2008. The securitization was backed by high quality prime jumbo mortgage loans that had been originated by CitiMortgage Inc. in 2009 and 2010. While the completion of this transaction represents a milestone for the potential return to health of the non-Agency residential securitization market, the prospects for the securitization market are still extremely uncertain, as the respective roles and requirements of sponsors, investors, underwriters, regulators, policy-makers, and rating agencies all continue to be re-evaluated. A second non-Agency securitization was completed on February 18, 2011 in the amount of $290 million. Like the April 2010 securitization, this securitization is backed by prime mortgage loans and marks another good sign for the potential return of the non-Agency mortgage securitization market. We are optimistic about the eventual return of the securitization market and believe that its return will create additional investment opportunities for us. However, the prospects for the securitization market are still extremely uncertain, as the respective roles and requirements of sponsors, investors, underwriters, regulators, policy-makers, and rating agencies all continue to be re-evaluated.

GSE Update

Subsequent to June 30, 2008, there were increased market concerns about Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s ability to withstand future credit losses associated with securities held in their investment portfolios, and on which they provide guarantees, without the direct support of the Federal Government. In September 2008 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into the conservatorship of the FHFA, their federal regulator, pursuant to its powers under The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, a part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. As the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FHFA controls and directs their operations and may (i) take over their assets and operate them with all the powers of their shareholders, directors, and officers and conduct all their business; (ii) collect all obligations and money due to them; (iii) perform all of their functions which are consistent with the conservator’s appointment; (iv) preserve and conserve their assets and property and (v) contract for assistance in fulfilling any function, activity, action or duty of the conservator. In addition to the FHFA becoming the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (i) the Treasury and FHFA entered into preferred stock purchase agreements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pursuant to which the Treasury will ensure that each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac maintains a positive net worth; (ii) the Treasury established a secured lending credit facility for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks to serve as a liquidity backstop; and (iii) the Treasury initiated a program to purchase RMBS issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In December 2009, the Treasury ended the secured lending credit facility and the RMBS purchase program, but contemporaneously lifted the cap on assistance to be provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pursuant to the preferred stock purchase program, thereby effectively providing nearly unlimited support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years.

In August 2010, the Obama administration hosted a major conference on the future of housing finance, which included a discussion regarding the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with the intended goal of developing a comprehensive housing finance reform proposal for delivery to Congress by January 2011. Additionally, during the conference, the Obama administration stated that it was committed to insuring these

59

Table of Contents

entities have adequate resources to meet their financial commitments. On February 11, 2011 the Treasury released a White Paper entitled “Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market”. This is the first step in what is likely to be a major change in the future role of the GSEs in the housing finance market. Major tenets of the plan include: (1) private markets, subject to strong oversight and standards for consumer and investor protection, will become the primary source of mortgage credit and bear the burden for losses, and (2) banks and other financial institutions will be required to hold more capital to withstand future recessions or significant declines in home prices, and will be required to adhere to more conservative underwriting standards that require homeowners to hold more equity in their homes. While the exact fate and role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain uncertain, it is probable that they will continue to shrink in size. They have already begun to divest some of their security holdings and we expect this will continue. Any legislation or policies that result from the proposed legislation may create opportunities for us and we continue to monitor the evolving status of these proposals.

Regulatory Reform

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the “Dodd-Frank Act”, was passed by Congress. This legislation aims to restore responsibility and accountability to the financial system through new supervisory and advisory bodies, including the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Dodd-Frank Act tasks many agencies with issuing a variety of new regulations, including rules related to mortgage origination and servicing, securitization and derivatives. It is unclear how this legislation may impact the borrowing environment, investing environment for Agency RMBS and interest rate swaps and other derivatives as regulators have not determined how the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented. Progress has been slow on many aspects of the bill and it may be some time before these regulations cause significant changes in the securities markets.

The derivatives market, and the credit derivatives market in particular, has been a significant focus for legislators and market regulators in considering additional regulations. Given the variety of potential regulations that have been proposed and the preliminary nature of most of the proposals, we are not able at this time to predict the impact any final regulations might have on our business. Proposed regulations could have positive, adverse or mixed consequences for our business. For example, some measures being considered and that we expect will be adopted would require that certain derivatives be traded on regulated exchanges or through clearinghouses. While such changes could benefit us by substantially reducing our derivatives counterparty-related risks, they might also reduce some of the market inefficiencies that we believe create opportunities for us. Such changes might also impact the amount of collateral that we are required to post against our derivatives positions, which could affect our liquidity and the amount of capital that we have available for our non-derivative investment activities. Such changes may lead us to re-evaluate our derivatives strategy in particular and our investment strategy overall. No assurance can be given that any final regulations will not impact our business in a material and adverse way.

Foreclosures

During the third quarter of 2010, several large banks suspended foreclosures and foreclosure sales in a number of states, and some public officials have called for nationwide foreclosure moratoria. Most banks have since resumed foreclosure proceedings. However, the attorneys general from all 50 states have launched a joint investigation into foreclosure practices and mortgage servicers’ involvement in those practices. The suspensions and investigations relate to two concerns. The first concern relates to the allegedly pervasive signing, by mortgage servicers and their agents, of foreclosure-related affidavits without actually having properly validated the information in the affidavits (“robo-signing”). The second concern relates to the standard of proof required for a mortgage servicer to demonstrate that it has proper standing to foreclose on behalf of a mortgage note holder. Delinquent borrowers have recently begun filing lawsuits requesting, and certain judges have recently begun requiring, mortgage servicers to produce the actual mortgage notes to prove their right to foreclose. Because many mortgages have been transferred and assigned multiple times through the origination, warehouse and securitization processes, and by means of varying assignment procedures, mortgage servicers are frequently having difficulty

60

Table of Contents

furnishing complete documentation. This leads to stalled or suspended foreclosure proceedings, and ultimately additional foreclosure-related costs. Foreclosure-related suspensions and investigations also slow the pace of liquidations, and thereby likely increase loan loss severities in the longer term as a result of property deterioration, amplified legal and other costs, and other factors. Servicers have maintained that most of these problems are process-oriented and can be largely fixed in the near term; however, certain factors delaying foreclosure, such as borrower lawsuits and judicial scrutiny, are outside of servicers’ control and will likely continue to slow foreclosure processing in both judicial and non-judicial states. One of the biggest risks overhanging the RMBS market has been uncertainty around the timing and ability of servicers to remove delinquent borrowers from their homes and ultimately liquidate properties to pass cash through to securitization trusts. This risk is very difficult to quantify and has been magnified by some court cases that have been in the news recently.

During the first quarter of 2011, a particular bank foreclosure case relating to improper documentation was widely publicized. The State Supreme Court of Massachusetts upheld a lower court decision invalidating two foreclosures by US Bancorp and Wells Fargo in Massachusetts. The Supreme Court agreed with the prior decision that the banks did not have proper documentation to prove that they had standing to foreclose. The judge ruled that since the lender failed to bring the assignment of the mortgage up to date until after the foreclosure sale, the foreclosures were invalid. The Massachusetts Supreme Court confirmed that the purchaser of a mortgage note has an equitable right to obtain an assignment of the mortgage, but at the same time it ruled that—in contrast to the law in most jurisdictions—the transfer of the mortgage note does not automatically transfer the mortgage itself. This ruling, along with any other similar rulings that may be issued in other jurisdictions, will create additional obstacles in the foreclosure process and thereby—at the very least—lengthen what is generally already an extremely protracted foreclosure process. Of additional note, the Massachusetts court did not address general questions of good title for bona fide third-party purchasers of improperly foreclosed properties; future rulings in this area could have significant effects on the real estate and financial markets in general, and on RMBS in particular.

Labor Market

On March 4, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that, as of February 2011, the U.S. unemployment rate was 8.9%. While it is difficult to quantify the relationship between the unemployment rate and the housing and mortgage markets, we believe that continued unemployment at such levels could contribute to further increases in mortgage delinquencies and decreases in home prices.

Prepayment Rates

Mortgage prepayment rates are sensitive to changes in interest rates, conditions in financial markets, lender competition and other factors, none of which can be predicted with any certainty. In general, when interest rates rise, it is relatively less attractive for borrowers to refinance their mortgage loans and, as a result, prepayment rates tend to decrease. Conversely, when interest rates fall, prepayment rates tend to increase. Prepayment rates can affect our RMBS in a number of ways. Faster-than-expected prepayment rates will generally adversely affect RMBS valued at a premium to par value, because the valuation premium will amortize faster than expected, and the above-market coupon that such premium securities carry will be earned for a shorter period of time. Conversely, slower-than-expected prepayment speeds will generally benefit RMBS valued at a premium, because the above-market coupon that such premium securities carry will be earned for a longer period of time. Similarly, faster-than-expected prepayment rates generally benefit RMBS valued at a discount to par value. However, to the extent that faster prepayment rates are due to lower interest rates, the principal payments received from prepayments will tend to be reinvested in lower-yielding assets which may reduce our income in the long run.

During the first quarter of 2010, each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced that it would significantly increase its repurchase of mortgage loans that are 120 or more days delinquent from mortgage pools backing Freddie Mac guaranteed RMBS or Fannie Mae guaranteed RMBS, as applicable. Fannie Mae reported that it had completed the repurchase of approximately $170 billion of these delinquent loans as of June 30, 2010, while Freddie Mac repurchased approximately $96.8 billion, and each of these entities may repurchase additional

61

Table of Contents

delinquent loans in the future. The initial effect of these repurchases was similar to a one-time or short-term increase in mortgage prepayment rates. The ongoing magnitude of the effect of these repurchases on a particular Agency RMBS depends upon the composition of the mortgage pool underlying each Agency RMBS, although for many Agency RMBS the effect has been, and we expect will continue to be, significant.

Credit Quality

The deterioration of the U.S. housing market as well as the economic downturn that began in 2007 have caused U.S. residential mortgage delinquency rates to remain at high levels for various types of mortgage loans, including subprime mortgage loans and option ARMs. For the month of February, 2011, delinquency rates on subprime mortgage loans and option ARMs averaged 41.2% and 43.3%, respectively, compared to 40.6% and 42.3% for the month of October, 2010. In December 2010, the composite S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city index, a broad measure of U.S. home prices dropped 0.96% from the prior month and was 2.38% lower than in December 2009. Loss severities upon default increased steadily through the first half of 2009 due to, among other things, additional servicing costs, delays in loan foreclosure, continuing home price declines and lack of incentive for mortgage servicers to minimize costs. The second half of 2009 and all of 2010 exhibited some stabilization or improvement of these measures of credit quality. More recently, however, the increasing supply of unsold homes as a result of foreclosure delays has put renewed downward pressure on home pricing. If this trend continues, we would expect to see further increased delinquency and loss rates on RMBS, especially in the subprime and option ARM sectors.

Liquidity and Valuations

Since 2007, as a result of the overall conditions in the credit markets, including reductions in value of various types of RMBS and other factors, available leverage on RMBS assets has decreased significantly, which contributed to the significant rise in market yields on these types of assets, and continues to negatively affect the liquidity of RMBS. As the credit markets have improved, liquidity and pricing of these assets has improved as well, but by historical standards liquidity and available leverage are still relatively low.

Over the past year, many investment banks have resumed making term financing available for non-Agency RMBS. The return of financing availability and the stabilization of borrowing costs have somewhat improved liquidity in the market for these securities.

Since the onset of the financial crisis, the deterioration in credit quality of non-Agency RMBS, in conjunction with the reduced liquidity in the overall RMBS market, has led to greater price volatility in non-Agency RMBS, making it more difficult to accurately value these assets. However, conditions are much better today than in early 2009, as improved liquidity and increased demand for securities is evident in firmer asset pricing across most RMBS sectors.

New Asset-Backed CDS Index

In April 2010, Markit launched a new structured finance index series called PrimeX. The index consists of four sub-indices, each referencing prime RMBS of different vintages and underlying loan types. This index was created to allow market participants to take positions on and gain exposure to prime RMBS synthetically. We have actively traded PrimeX since its initial launch.

2010 Review and Outlook for 2011

During the 2010 year, our non-Agency RMBS portfolio experienced significant price appreciation as credit spreads declined, asset demand and liquidity increased and the overall outlook for that market continued to improve. This, however, also caused our asset yields to decline over the course of the year. We also continued, and expect to continue in 2011, to hedge a portion of our credit risk in our non-Agency RMBS portfolio through the use of asset-backed credit default swaps.

62

Table of Contents

Because we hedged our exposure to potential increases in interest rates, our interest rate hedges created a drag on our earnings in the first three quarters of the year, as the 5-year swap rate declined from 2.98% at the beginning of the year to 1.52% at September 30, 2010. However, the 5-year swap rate increased by 0.65% to 2.17% by year end, and so our interest rate hedges were net contributors to our earnings in the last quarter of 2010. Through the use of interest rate swaps, TBAs and Euro-Dollar futures, we expect to continue to hedge our exposure to potential increases in interest rates.

In our Agency RMBS portfolio, we continue to seek to mitigate prepayment risk on our premium pools by targeting pools with attractive borrower profiles that we think will prepay more slowly than what the market seems to be pricing in. Our proprietary modeling based on the collection of loan-level data remains an essential tool in the management of our portfolio.

We have fully deployed all of the proceeds raised in our October 2010 initial public offering. At the same time, we have also increased our leverage relative to September 30, 2010. We believe that the opportunities in both the Agency and non-Agency RMBS markets continue to be both attractive and plentiful, as demonstrated by our quick capital deployment and decision to modestly increase our leverage. In addition, the RMBS financing environment continued to improve over the course of the year, not only with respect to borrowing rates but also with respect to haircuts and terms. The interest rates on our reverse repos are highly correlated with, and often tied to, LIBOR. For the year ended December 31, 2010, one-month LIBOR averaged 0.27% compared to 0.33% for the year ended December 31, 2009.

Early in 2011, Ellington hired a senior investment professional with significant expertise in commercial mortgage loans and CMBS to augment existing resources within Ellington. While we only held $1.9 million of CMBS investments as of December 31, 2010, we have made both additional investments in CMBS and a commercial mortgage loan investment in the first quarter of 2011, and we expect that we will become more active in 2011 in these sectors.

We continue to target non-Agency RMBS at prices that we believe will provide attractive, risk-adjusted total returns. Additionally, we continually focus on managing our cash and liquidity with a goal of maintaining sufficient available cash and liquidity to both take advantage of opportunities to acquire assets and meet our anticipated operating and financing needs.

Critical Accounting Policies

Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for investment companies. In June 2007, the AICPA issued Amendments to ASC 946-10 (ASC 946), Clarification of the Scope of the Audit and Accounting Guide Investment Companies and Accounting by Parent Companies and Equity Method Investors for Investments in Investment Companies. ASC 946 was effective for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2007 with earlier application encouraged. After we adopted ASC 946, the FASB issued guidance which effectively delayed indefinitely the effective date of ASC 946. However, this additional guidance explicitly permitted entities that early adopted ASC 946 before December 31, 2007 to continue to apply the provisions of ASC 946. We have elected to continue to apply the provisions of ASC 946. ASC 946 provides guidance for determining whether an entity is within the scope of the AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Investment Companies, or the Guide. The Guide provides guidance for determining whether the specialized industry accounting principles of the Guide should be retained in the financial statements of a parent company, of an investment company or of an equity method investor in an investment company. Effective August 17, 2007, we adopted ASC 946 and follow its provisions which, among other things, requires that investments be reported at fair value in the financial statements. Although we conduct our operations so that we are not required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, for financial reporting purposes, we have elected to continue to apply the provisions of ASC 946.

63

Table of Contents

Certain of our critical accounting policies require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. We believe that all of the decisions and assessments upon which our consolidated financial statements are based were reasonable at the time made based upon information available to us at that time. We rely on our Manager and Ellington’s experience and analysis of historical and current market data in order to arrive at what we believe to be reasonable estimates. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for a complete discussion of our significant accounting policies. We have identified our most critical accounting policies to be the following:

Valuation: We adopted a three-level valuation hierarchy for disclosure of fair value measurements on January 1, 2008. The valuation hierarchy is based upon the transparency of inputs to the valuation of an asset or liability as of the measurement date. Financial instruments include securities, derivatives and repurchase agreements. A financial instrument’s categorization within the valuation hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The inputs or methodology used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in these securities.

The following is a description of the valuation methodologies used for our financial instruments:

Level 1 valuation methodologies include the observation of quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities in active markets, often received from widely recognized data providers.

Level 2 valuation methodologies include the observation of (i) quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, (ii) inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability (for example, interest rates and yield curves) in active markets and (iii) quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active.

Level 3 fair value methodologies include (i) the use of proprietary models that require the use of a significant amount of judgment and the application of various assumptions including, but not limited to, prepayment assumptions and default rate assumptions, and (ii) the solicitation of valuations from third-parties (typically, broker-dealers). Third-party valuation providers often utilize proprietary models that are highly subjective and also require the use of a significant amount of judgment and the application of various assumptions including, but not limited to, prepayment assumptions and default rate assumptions. Our Manager utilizes such information to assign a good faith valuation (the estimated price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction at the valuation date) to such financial instruments. Our Manager has been able to obtain third-party valuations on the vast majority of our assets and expects to continue to solicit third-party valuations on substantially all of our assets in the future to the extent practical. Our Manager uses its judgment, based on its own models, the assessments of its portfolio managers, and third-party valuations it obtains, to determine and assign fair values to our Level 3 assets. We believe that third-party valuations play an important role in ensuring that our Manager’s valuation determinations are fair and reasonable. Our Manager’s valuation process is subject to the oversight of the Manager’s investment and risk management committee as well as the oversight of the independent members of our Board of Directors. Because of the inherent uncertainty of valuation, these estimated values may differ significantly from the values that would have been used had a ready market for the financial instruments existed, and the differences could be material to the consolidated financial statements.

See the notes to our consolidated financial statements for more information on valuation.

Securities Transactions and Investment Income: Securities transactions are recorded on trade date. Realized and unrealized gains and losses are calculated based on identified cost. Principal write-offs are generally treated as realized losses. Interest income is recorded as earned. Generally, we accrete market discount and amortize market premium on debt securities using the effective yield method and classify paydown gains or losses as interest income. Accretion of market discount and amortization of premium require the use of a significant amount of judgment and the application of several assumptions including, but not limited to, prepayment rate and default rate assumptions.

64

Table of Contents

LTIP Units: Long term incentive plan units, or “LTIP units,” have been issued to our dedicated officers, independent directors as well as to our Manager. The costs associated with LTIP units are amortized over the relevant vesting period. The vesting period for units issued to independent directors under the Ellington Incentive Plan for Individuals, or “Individual LTIP units,” is one year for the grants awarded on August 17, 2007, October 1, 2009, and October 1, 2010, and nine months for the grants awarded on December 31, 2008. The vesting period for Individual LTIP units issued to officers is one year for the grant awarded on December 15, 2010. Vesting period for units issued to our Manager under the Ellington Incentive Plan for Entities, or the “Manager LTIP units,” occurred over a three year period with one-third of the units vesting at the end of each year. The cost of the Manager LTIP units fluctuated with the price per share until the vesting date, whereas the cost of the Individual LTIP units is based on the price per share at the initial grant date. As of December 31, 2010, the Manager LTIPs were fully vested.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Refer to the notes to our consolidated financial statements for a description of relevant recent accounting pronouncements.

Financial Condition

The following table summarizes our investment portfolio as of December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009. For more detailed information about the investments in our portfolio, please refer to Consolidated Condensed Schedules of Investments as of these dates contained in our consolidated financial statements.