UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 20042006

For the Transition Period Fromto            

Commission File Number 001-13533

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code:(816) 237-7000

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 by Rule 405 of the Securities

Act.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the

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 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 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, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer  x    Accelerated filer  ¨    Non-accelerated filer  ¨

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

The aggregate market value of voting and non-voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 20042006 was approximately $948,751,931$972,533,092, based upon the closing sales price of the registrant’s common stock as reported byon the New York Stock Exchange Composite Transactions on such date.

The number of shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding on March 11, 2005February 28, 2007 was 27,860,629.37,410,228.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III are incorporated by reference to the NovaStar Financial, Inc. definitive proxy statement to shareholders, which will be filed with the Commission no later than 120 days after December 31, 2004.2006.

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL, INC.

FORM 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 20042006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Item 1.BusinessSafe Harbor Statement

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, regarding management’s beliefs, estimates, projections, and assumptions with respect to, among other things, our future operations, business plans and strategies, as well as industry and market conditions, all of which are subject to change at any time without notice. Actual results and operations for any future period may vary materially from those projected herein and from past results discussed herein. Some important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated include: our ability to successfully integrate acquired businesses or assets with our existing business; our ability to generate sufficient liquidity on favorable terms; the size, frequency and structure of our securitizations; impairments on our mortgage assets; interest rate fluctuations on our assets that differ from our liabilities; increases in prepayment or default rates on our mortgage assets; changes in assumptions regarding estimated loan losses and fair value amounts; our continued status as a REIT; changes in origination and resale pricing of mortgage loans; our compliance with applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations or opinions of counsel relating thereto and the impact of new local, state or federal legislation or regulations, or opinions of counsel relating thereto, or court decisions on our operations; the initiation of margin calls under our credit facilities; the ability of our servicing operations to maintain high performance standards and maintain appropriate ratings from rating agencies; our ability to expand origination volume while maintaining an acceptable level of overhead; our ability to adapt to and implement technological changes; the stability of residential property values; the outcome of litigation or regulatory actions pending against us or other legal contingencies; compliance with new accounting pronouncements; the impact of general economic conditions; and the risks that are from time to time included in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), including this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Other factors not presently identified may also cause actual results to differ. Words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “promise,” “plan,” and other expressions or words of similar meanings, as well as future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “would,” “should,” “could,” or “may” are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements. This document speaks only as of its date and we expressly disclaim any duty to update the information herein.

OverviewItem 1.Business

We are a Maryland corporation formed on September 13, 1996 which operates as a specialty finance company that originates, purchases, securitizes, sells, invests in and services residential nonconforming loans. We operate through three separate but inter-related units—mortgage lendingloans and loan servicing, mortgage portfolio management and branch operations.mortgage-backed securities. We offer a wide range of mortgage loan products to nonconforming borrowers, commonly referred to as “nonconforming borrowers,” who generally do not satisfy the credit, collateral, documentation or other underwriting standards prescribed by conventional mortgage lenders and loan buyers, including United States of America government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. We retain significant interests in the nonconforming loans we originate and purchase through our mortgage securities investment portfolio. Through our servicing platform, we then service all of the loans we retain interests in, in order to better manage the credit performance of those loans.

We have elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust or REIT,(“REIT”) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code)(the “Code”). Management believes the tax-advantaged structure ofFor so long as we maintain our status as a REIT, maximizes the after-tax returns from mortgage assets. Wewe must meet numerous rules established by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to retain our status as a REIT.(“IRS”). In summary, theythese rules require us to:

As long as we maintain our REIT status, distributions to stockholdersour shareholders will generally be deductible by us for income tax purposes. This deduction effectively eliminates REIT level income taxes. Management believes it has and will continue to meetthat we have met the requirements to maintain our REIT status for 2006 and prior years. We are, however, currently evaluating whether it is in shareholders’ best interests to retain our REIT status.

We operate three core businesses:

Segment information regarding these businesses for the three years ended December 31, 2006 is included in Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements.

Mortgage Portfolio Management

portfolios.

EarningsIn 2005 we began retaining various subordinate securities from our securitization transactions. In 2006, we began purchasing subordinated ABS of other ABS issuers. We will continue to acquire, retain, and aggregate ABS with the intention of securing non-recourse long-term financing through collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) securitizations. In the future, we may enter into derivative transactions referencing third party ABS, commonly referred to as “synthetic” assets. We also intend to retain the risk of the underlying securities by investing in the equity and subordinated debt of CDO securitizations. CDO equity securities bear the first-loss and second-loss credit risk with respect to the securities owned by the securitization entity. Our goal is to leverage our extensive portfolio management experience by purchasing securities that are higher in the capital structure than our residual securities and executing CDOs for long-term non-recourse financing, thereby generating good risk-adjusted returns. We closed our first CDO securitization which was structured as a financing transaction on February 8, 2007, and we expect to continue to purchase securities that are higher in the capital structure and finance them with CDOs.

The long-term mortgage loan portfolio on our balance sheet consists of mortgage loans and securities generate a substantial portion of our earnings. Gross interest income was $224.0 million, $170.4 million and $107.1 millionclassified as held-in-portfolio resulting from securitization transactions treated as financings completed in the three years ended December 31, 2004, 2003second and 2002, respectively. Net interest income before credit losses/recoveries from the portfolio was $171.4 million, $130.1 millionthird quarters of 2006 (NHES Series 2006-1 and $79.4 millionNHES Series 2006-MTA1). We have financed our investment in the three years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. See our discussion of interest income under the heading “Results of Operations” and “Net Interest Income”. See Note 15 to our consolidated financial statements for a summary of operating results and total assets for mortgage portfolio management.these loans by issuing ABB.

A significant risk toThe credit performance and prepayment rates of the nonconforming loans underlying our operations, relating to our portfolio management, issecurities, as well as the risk thatloans classified as held-in-portfolio, directly affects the profitability of this segment. In addition short-term interest rates have a significant impact on our assets will not adjust at the same times or amounts that rates on our liabilities adjust. Many of the loans in our portfolio have fixed rates of interest for a period of time ranging from 2 to 30 years. Our funding costs are generally not constant or fixed. We use derivative instruments to mitigate the risk of our cost of funding increasing or decreasing at a faster rate than the interest on the loans (both those on the balance sheet and those that serve as collateral for mortgage securities – available-for-sale).this segment’s profitability.

In certain circumstances, because we enter into interest rate agreements that do not meet the hedging criteria set forth in accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, we are required to record the change in the value of derivatives as a component of earnings even though they may reduce our interest rate risk. In times where short-term rates rise or drop significantly, the value of our agreements will increase or decrease, respectively. As a result, we recognized losses on these derivatives of $8.9 million, $30.8 million and $36.8 million in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

Mortgage Lending and Loan Servicing

The mortgage lending operation is significant to our financial results as it produces the loans that ultimately collateralize the mortgage securities – available-for-sale that we hold in our portfolio. During 2004, we originated and purchased $8.4 billion in nonconforming mortgage loans, the majority of which were retained in our servicing portfolio and serve as collateral for our securities. The loans we originate and purchase are sold, either in securitization transactions structured as sales or infinancing transactions, or are sold outright sales to third parties. We recognized gainsfinance the loans we originate and purchase by using warehouse repurchase agreements on sales ofa short-term basis. For long-term financing, we securitize our mortgage assets totaling $145.0 million, $144.0 millionloans and $53.3 million during the three years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. In securitization transactions accounted for as sales, we retain interest-only, prepayment penalty, overcollateralization and other subordinated securities, along with the right to service the loans. See Note 15 to our consolidated financial statements for a summary of operating results and total assets for mortgage lending and loan servicing.issue ABB.

Our wholly-owned subsidiary, NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.,mortgage lending operations generate earnings primarily from securitizing and selling loans for a premium. We also earn revenue from fees from loan originations and interest income on mortgage loans held-for-sale. The timing, size and structure of our securitization transactions have a significant impact on the gain on sale recognized and ultimately the profitability of this segment. In addition the market prices for whole loans and short-term interest rates have a significant impact on this segment’s profitability.

Our mortgage lending segment originates and purchases primarily nonconforming, single-family residential mortgage loans. Our mortgage lending operation continues to innovate in loan origination. Our lending decisions are driven by three primary objectives:

In our nonconforming lending operations, we lend to individuals who generally do not qualify for agency/conventional lending programs because of a lack of available documentation, or previous credit difficulties.difficulties or higher loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratios. These types of borrowers are generally willing to pay higher mortgage loan origination fees and interest rates than those charged by conventional lending sources.lenders. Because these borrowers typically use the proceeds of the mortgage loans to consolidate debt and to finance home improvements, education and other consumer needs, loan volume is generally less dependent on general levels of interest rates or home sales and therefore less cyclical than conventional mortgage lending.

Our nationwide loan origination network includes wholesale loan brokers, mortgage lenders, and correspondent institutions, andall of which are independent of any of the NovaStar Financial entities, as well as our own direct to consumer operations. We have developed a nationwide network of wholesale loan brokers and mortgage lenders who submit mortgage loans to us. Except for NovaStar Home Mortgage brokers described below, these brokers and mortgage lenders are independent from any of the NovaStar entities. Our sales force, which includes account executives in 3938 states, develops and maintains relationships with this network of independent retail brokers. Our correspondent origination channel consists of a network of institutions from which we purchase nonconforming mortgage loans on a bulk or flow basis. Our direct to consumer originationoperations channel consists of call centers where we contact potential borrowers as well as a network of branch operations which use telemarketing and internet loan lead sourceswe acquired in the fourth quarter of 2006 in order to originate mortgage loans.expand this origination channel.

We underwrite, process, fund and service the nonconforming mortgage loans sourced through our broker network of wholesale loan brokers and mortgage lenders and our direct to consumer operations in centralized facilities. Further details regarding the loan originations are discussed under the “Mortgage Loans” section of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”.

A significant risk to our mortgage lending operations is liquidity risk – the risk that we will not have financing facilities and cash available to fund and hold loans prior to their sale or securitization. We maintain committed lending facilities with large banking and investment institutions to reduce this risk. On a short-term basis, we finance mortgage loans using warehouse repurchase agreements. In addition, we have access to facilities secured by our mortgage securities – available-for-sale. Details regarding available financing arrangements and amounts outstanding under those arrangements are included in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements.Loan Servicing

For long-term funding, we pool our mortgage loans and issue asset-backed bonds (ABB). Primary bonds – AAA through BBB rated – are issued to the public. We retain the interest-only, prepayment penalty, overcollateralization and other subordinated bonds. We also retain the right to service the loans. Prior to 1999, our ABB transactions were executed and designed to meet accounting rules that resulted in securitizations being treated as financing transactions. The mortgage loans and related debt continue to be presented on our consolidated balance sheets, and no gain was recorded. Beginning in 1999, our securitization transactions have been structured to qualify as sales for accounting and income tax purposes. The loans and related bond liability are not recorded in our consolidated financial statements. We do, however, record the value of the securities and servicing rights we retain. Details regarding ABBs we issued can be found in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and in Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements.

LoanManagement believes loan servicing remains a critical part of our business operation. In the opinion of management,operation because maintaining contact with our borrowers is critical in managing credit risk and infor borrower retention. Nonconforming borrowers are more prone to late payments and are more likely to default on their obligations than conventional borrowers. By servicing our loans, we strive to identify problems with borrowers early and take quick action to address problems. BorrowersIn addition, borrowers may be motivated to refinance their mortgage loans either by improving their personal credit or due to a decrease in interest rates. By keeping in close touch with borrowers, we can provide them with information about companyNovaStar Financial products to encourage them to refinance with us.

We retain the servicing rights with respect to the loans we securitize. Mortgage servicing yields fee income for us in the form of contractual fees approximating 0.50% of the outstanding balance of loans we service that have been securitized. In addition we receive fees paid by the borrowers for normal customer service and processing fees. In additionWe also earn interest income on funds we receive contractual fees approximating 0.50% of the outstanding balance and rights to future cash flows arising after the investors in the securitization trusts have received the return for which they contracted. We recognized $41.5 million, $21.1 million and $10.0 million in loan servicing fee income from the securitization trusts during the three years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. See also “Mortgage Loan Servicing” under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for further discussion and analysishold as custodian as part of the servicing operations.

Branch Operationsprocess.

In 1999, we opened our retail mortgage broker business operating under the name NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. (“NHMI”). Prior to 2004, many of these NHMI branches were supported by LLC’s operating under LLC agreements where we owned a minority interest in the LLC and the branch manager was the majority interest holder. In December 2003, we decided to terminate the LLC’s effective January 1, 2004. As of January 1, 2004, continuing branches that formerly operated under LLC agreements became operating units of NHMI and their financial results are included in the consolidated financial statements. See Note 14 to our consolidated financial statements for further discussion. Branch offices offer conforming and nonconforming loans to potential borrowers. Loans are brokered for approved investors, including NovaStar Mortgage. The NHMI branches are considered departmental functions of NHMI under which the branch manager (department head) is an employee of NHMI and receives compensation based on the profitability of the branch (department) as bonus compensation. See Note 15 to our consolidated financial statements for a summary of operating results and total assets for our branches.

We routinely close branches and branch managers voluntarily terminate their employment with us, which generally results in the branch’s closure. As the demand for conforming loans declined significantly during 2004, many branches were not able to produce sufficient fees to meet operating expense demands. As a result of these conditions, a significant number of branch managers voluntarily terminated employment with us. We have also terminated many branches when loan production results were substandard. In these terminations, the branch and all operations are eliminated. Note 14 to our consolidated financial statements provides detail regarding the impact of the discontinued operations and modifications to our branch program.

The branch business provides an additional source for mortgage loan originations that, in most cases, we will eventually sell, either in securitizations or in outright sales to third parties. During 2004 and 2003, our branches brokered $3.7 billion and $6.4 billion, respectively, in nonconforming loans, of which we funded $1.7 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively.

Following is a diagram of the industry in which we operate and our loan production including nonconforming and conforming during 2004 (in thousands).

Market in Which NovaStar Operates and Competes

Over the last ten years, the nonconforming lending market has grown from less than $50 billion annually to approximately $640 billion in 2006 as estimated by Inside Mortgage Finance Publications. A significant portion of nonconforming loans are made to borrowers who are using equity in their primary residence to consolidate installment or consumer debt, or take cash out for personal reasons. The nonconforming market has grown through a variety of interest rate environments. Management estimates that in 2006 we had a 1-2% share of the nonconforming loan market.

We face intense competition in the business of originating, purchasing, selling and securitizing mortgage loans. The number of market participants is believed to be well in excess of 100 companies who originate and purchase nonconforming loans. No single participant holds a dominant share of the lending market. We compete for borrowers with consumer finance companies, conventional mortgage bankers, commercial banks, credit unions, thrift institutions and other independent wholesale mortgage lenders. Our principal competition in the business of holding mortgage loans and mortgage securities – available-for-sale are life insurance companies, institutional investors such as mutual funds and pension funds, other well-capitalized publicly-owned mortgage lenders and certain other mortgage acquisition companies structured as REITs. Many of these competitors are substantially larger than we are and have considerably greater financial resources than we do.

Competition among industry participants can take many forms, including convenience in obtaining a loan, amount and term of the loan, customer service, marketing/distribution channels, loan origination fees and interest rates. To the extent any competitor significantly expands their activities in the nonconforming and subprime market, we could be materially adversely affected.

Our principal competition in the business of holding mortgage loans and mortgage securities are life insurance companies, institutional investors such as mutual funds and pension funds, other well-capitalized, publicly-owned mortgage lenders and certain other mortgage acquisition companies structured as REITs. Many of these competitors are substantially larger than we are and have considerably greater financial resources than we do.

One of our key competitive strengths is our employees and the level of service they are able to provide our borrowers. We service our nonconforming loans and, in doing so, we are able to stay in close contact with our borrowers and identify potential problems early.

We also believe we compete successfully due to our:

Risk Management

Management recognizes the following primary risks associated with the business and industry in which it operates.

Interest Rate/Market Risk

Risk.Our investment policy sets the following general goals:

(1) Maintaingoals are to maintain the net interest margin between our assets and liabilities and

(2) Diminish to diminish the effect of changes in interest rate levels on ourthe market value of our assets.

Interest Rate Risk. When interest rates on our assets do not adjust at the same time or in the same amounts as the interest rates ason our liabilities or when the assets have fixed rates and the liabilities are adjusting,have adjustable rates, future earnings potential is affected. We express this interest rate risk as the risk that the market value of our assets will increase or decrease at different rates than that of theour liabilities. Expressed another way, this is the risk that our net asset value will experience an adverse change when interest rates change. We assess the risk based on the change in market values given increases and decreases in interest rates. We also assess the risk based on the impact to net income in changing interest rate environments.

Management primarily usesThe interest rates under our primary financing sources where the interest rate resetsreset frequently. As of December 31, 2004,2006, rates on a majority of our borrowings under all financing arrangements adjust daily or monthly.monthly off London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”). On the other hand, very few of the mortgage assets we own adjust on a monthly or daily basis. Most of the mortgage loans contain features where theirhave rates that are fixed for some period of time and then adjust frequently thereafter.ranging from 2 to 30 years. For example, one of our loan products is the “2/28” loan. This loan is fixed for its first two years and then adjusts every six months thereafter.

While short-term borrowing rates are low and long-term asset rates are high, this portfolio structure produces good results. However, if short-term interest rates rise rapidly, earning potential iswould be significantly affected and impairments may be incurred, as the asset rate resets would lag the borrowing rate resets.

We transfer interest rate agreements at the time of securitization into the securitization trusts to protect the third-party bondholders from interest rate risk and to decrease the volatility of future cash flows related to the securitized mortgage loans. We enter into these interest rate agreements as we originate and purchase mortgage loans in our mortgage lending segment. At the time of a securitization structured as a sale, we transfer interest rate agreements into the securitization trusts and they are removed from our balance sheet. The trust assumes the obligation to make payments and obtains the right to receive payments under these agreements. Generally, net settlement obligations paid by the trust for these interest rate agreements reduce the excess interest cash flows to our residual securities. Net settlement receipts from these interest rate agreements are either used to cover interest shortfalls on the third-party primary bonds or to provide credit enhancement with any remaining funds then flowing to our residual securities. For securitizations structured as financings the derivatives will remain on our balance sheet. Generally, these interest rate agreements do not meet the hedging criteria set forth in accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) while they are on our balance sheet; therefore, we are required to record their change in value as a component of earnings even though they may reduce our interest rate risk. In times when short-term rates rise or drop significantly, the value of our agreements will increase or decrease, respectively. Occasionally, we enter into interest rate agreements that do meet the hedging criteria set forth in GAAP. In these instances, we record their change in value, if effective, directly to other comprehensive income on our statement of shareholder’s equity.

Interest Rate Sensitivity Analysis. ToWe model financial information in a variety of interest rate scenarios to assess interest rate sensitivity as an indication of exposure to interest rate risk, management relies on models of financial information in a variety of interest rate scenarios.risk. Using these models, the fair value and interest rate sensitivity of each financial instrument, or groups of similar instruments, is estimated, and then aggregated to form a comprehensive picture of the risk characteristics of the balance sheet. The risks are analyzed on a market value basis.

The following table summarizes management’s estimates of the changes in market value of our same mortgage assets and interest rate agreements assuming interest rates were 100 and 200 basis points, or 1one and 2two percent higher andor lower. The cumulative change in market value represents the change in market value of mortgage assets, net of the change in market value of interest rate agreements. The change in market value of the liabilities on our balance sheet due to a change in interest rates is insignificant since a majority of our short-term borrowings and ABB are adjustable rate; however, as noted above, rapid increases in short-term interest rates would negatively impact the interest-rate spread between our liabilities onand assets and, consequently, our balance sheet which finance our mortgage assets is insignificant.earnings.

Interest Rate Sensitivity - Market Value

(dollars in thousands)

Hedging.In orderWe use derivative instruments to addressmitigate the risk of our cost of funding increasing at a mismatch offaster rate than the interest rate indices and adjustment periods on our assets and liabilities, the hedging section of the investment policy is followed, as approved by the Board. Specifically, theloans. We adhere to an interest rate risk management program that is approved by our Board. This program is formulated with the intent to offset the potential adverse effects resulting from rate adjustment limitations on mortgage assets and the differences between interest rate adjustment indices and interest rate adjustment periods of adjustable-rate mortgage loans and related borrowings.

We use interest rate cap and swap contracts to mitigate the risk of the costfinancing expense of variable rate liabilities increasing at a faster rate than the earningsincome produced on assets during a period of rising rates. In this way, managementManagement intends generally to hedge as much of the interest rate risk as determined to be in our best interest, given the cost and risk of hedging transactions and the needlimitations on our ability to maintainhedge imposed on us by REIT status.tax requirements.

We seek to build a balance sheet and undertake an interest rate risk management program that is likely, in management’s view, to enable us to maintain an equity liquidation value sufficient to maintain operations given a variety of potentially adverse circumstances. Accordingly, the hedging program addresses both income preservation, as discussed in the first part of this section, and capital preservation concerns.

Interest rate cap and swap agreements are legal contracts between us and a third-party firm or “counterparty”. TheUnder an interest rate cap agreement the counterparty agrees to make payments to us in the future should the one-month LIBOR interest rate rise above the strike rate specified in the contract. We make either quarterly or monthly premium payments or have chosen to pay the premiums at the beginning to the counterparties under contract. Each contract has either a fixed or amortizing notional face amount on which the interest is computed, and a set term to maturity. When the referenced LIBOR interest rate rises above the contractual strike rate, we earn cap income. Payments on an annualized basis equal the contractual notional face amount times the difference between actual LIBOR and the strike rate. Interest rate swaps have similar characteristics. However,Under interest rate swap agreements allow us towe pay a fixed rate of interest while receiving a rate that adjusts with one-month LIBOR.

The following table summarizes the key contractual terms associated with our interest rate risk management contracts. Substantially allcontracts on our balance sheet as of theDecember 31, 2006. All of our pay-fixed swapsswap contracts and interest rate capscap contracts are indexed to one-month LIBOR.

We have determined the following estimated net fair value amounts by using available market information and valuation methodologies we deem appropriate as of December 31, 2004.2006.

Interest Rate Risk Management Contracts

(dollars in thousands)

Liquidity/Funding RiskWe had no interest rate agreements with contractual maturities beyond 2011 as of December 31, 2006.

MortgageLiquidity/Funding Risk.A significant risk to our mortgage lending requires significantoperations is the risk that we will not have financing facilities and cash available to fund loan originations and purchases. Our warehouse lending arrangements, includinghold loans prior to their sale or securitization, to fund required repurchase agreements, support the mortgage lending operation. Our warehouse mortgage lenders allow us to borrow between 98%requests and 100% of the outstanding principal. Funding for the difference – generally 2% of the principal - must come from cash on hand. If we are unable to obtain sufficient cash resources,margin calls or that we may not be able to operatesecuritize our loans or securities upon favorable terms. On a short-term basis, we finance mortgage loans using warehouse repurchase agreements that we maintain with large banking and investment institutions. In addition, we have access to facilities secured by our mortgage lending (banking) segment.

We are currently dependent upon a limited number of primary credit facilities forsecurities and servicing advance receivables. For long-term financing, we depend on securitizations and CDOs. Other matters also impact our liquidity and funding of our mortgage loan originations and acquisitions. Any failure to renew or obtain adequate funding under these financing arrangements could harm our lending operations and our overall performance. An increase in the cost of financing in excess of any change in the income derived from our mortgage assets could also harm our earnings and reduce the cash available for distributions to our stockholders. In October 1998, the subprime mortgage loan market faced a liquidity crisis with respect to the availability of short-term borrowings from major lenders and long-term borrowings through securitization. At that time, we faced significant liquidity constraints that harmed our business and our profitability. We can provide no assurance that those adverse circumstances will not recur.

We use repurchase agreements to finance the acquisition of mortgage assets in the short-term. In a repurchase agreement, we sell an asset and agree to repurchase the same asset at some period in the future. Generally, the repurchase agreements we entered into stipulate that we must repurchase the asset in 30 days. For financial accounting purposes, these arrangements are treated as secured financings. We retain the assets on our balance sheet and record an obligation to repurchase the asset. For our repurchase agreements secured by mortgage loans, the amount we may borrow is generally 98% of the mortgage loan market value. For our repurchase agreements secured by mortgage securities, the amount we may borrow is generally 75% of the mortgage securities market value. When asset market values decrease, we are required to repay the margin, or difference in market value. To the extent the market values of assets financed with repurchase agreements decline rapidly, we will be required to meet cash margin calls. If cash is unavailable, we may default on our obligations under the applicable repurchase agreement. In that event, the lender retains the right to liquidate the collateral we provided to it to settle the amount due from us.

We are dependent on the securitization market for the sale of our loans because we securitize loans directly and many of our whole loan buyers purchase our loans with the intention to securitize. The securitization market is dependent upon a number of factors, including general economic conditions, conditions in the securities market generally and conditions in the asset-backed securities market specifically. In addition, poor performance of our previously securitized loans could harm our access to the securitization market. Accordingly, a decline in the securitization market, the ability to obtain attractive terms or a change in the market’s demand for our loans could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

risk. See the “Liquidity and Capital Resources” section of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for further discussion of liquidity risks and resources available to us.

Credit Risk

. Credit risk is the risk that we will not fully collect the principal we have invested in mortgage loans or the amount we have invested in securities. Nonconforming mortgage loans comprise substantially our entire mortgage loan portfolio and serve as collateral for our mortgage securities – available-for-sale. Our nonconformingsecurities. Nonconforming borrowers include individuals who do not qualify for agency/conventional lending programs because of a lack of conventional documentation or previous credit difficulties but have considerable equity in their homes. Often, they are individuals or families who have built up high-rate consumer debt and are attempting to use the equity in their home to consolidate debt and reduce the amount of money it takes to service their monthly debt obligations. Our underwriting guidelines are intended to evaluate the credit history of the potential borrower, the capacity and willingness of the borrower to repay the loan, and the adequacy of the collateral securing the loan.

UnderwritingOur underwriting staff workworks under the credit policies established by our Chief Credit Officer.Committee. Underwriters are given approval authority only after their work has been reviewed for a period of time. Thereafter, the Chief Credit Officer re-evaluates the authority levels of all underwriting personnel on an ongoing basis. All loans in excess of $350,000 currently require the approval of an underwriting supervisor. Our Chief Credit Officer or our President must approve loans in excess of $1,000,000.

TheOur underwriting guidelines take into consideration the number of times the potential borrower has recently been late on a mortgage payment and whether that payment was 30, 60 or 90 days past due. Factors such as FICO score, bankruptcy and foreclosure filings, debt-to-income ratio, and loan-to-value ratio are also considered. The credit grade that is assigned to the borrower is a reflection of the borrower’s historical credit and the loan-to-value determined by the amount of documentation the borrower could produce to support income.credit. Maximum loan-to-value ratios for each credit grade depend on the level of income documentation provided by the potential borrower. In some instances, when the borrower exhibits strong compensating factors, exceptions to the underwriting guidelines may be approved.

In 2006, we saw the performance of our 2006 vintage production drop to unacceptable levels. We believe this performance is related to a few key fundamentals such as:

KeyGoing forward, the key area of focus for our credit management function is to ensure that the 2007 vintage performs better than 2006 and in line with our successful underwriting process is the use of NovaStarIS®. NovaStarIS® is the second generation of our proprietary automated underwriting system. IS provides more consistency in underwriting loans and allows underwriting personnel to focus more of their time on loans that are not initially accepted by the IS system.expectations. In this regard, we have taken several steps which include:

A toolOther strategies we use for managing credit risk isare to diversify the markets in which we originate, purchase and own mortgage loans. Presented via our website at www.novastarmortgage.com is a breakdownloans and the purchase of the geographic diversification of our loans. Details regarding loans charged off are disclosed in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements.

mortgage insurance. We have purchased mortgage insurance on manya majority of the loans that are held in our portfolio – on the balance sheet and those that serve as collateral for our mortgage securities – available-for-sale.securities. The use of mortgage insurance is discussed under “Premiums for Mortgage Loan Insurance” in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”. Details regarding loans charged off are disclosed in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements.

Prepayment Risk

.Generally speaking, when market interest rates decline, borrowers are more likely to refinance their mortgages. The higher the interest rate a borrower currently has on his or her mortgage the more incentive he or she has to refinance the mortgage when rates decline. In addition, the higher the credit grade, the more incentive there is to refinance increases when credit ratings improve. When home values rise, loan-to-value ratios drop, making it more likely that a borrower has a low loan-to-value ratio, he or she is more likely towill do a “cash-out” refinance. Each of these factors increases the chance for higher prepayment speeds during the term of the loan.speeds.

The majority of our mortgage securities available-for-sale portfolio consists of securities which are “interest-only” in nature. These securities represent the net cash flow – interest income – on the underlying loans in excess of the cost to finance the loans. When borrowers repay the principal on their mortgage loans early, the effect is to shorten the period over which interest is earned, and therefore, reduce the cash flow and yield on our securities.

We mitigate prepayment risk by originating and purchasing loans that include a penalty if the borrower repays the loan in the early months of the loan’s life. For theA majority of our loans have a prepayment penalty is charged equalup to but no greater than 80% of six months interest on the principal balance that is to be paid in full.being repaid. As of December 31, 2004, 73%2006, 60% of our securitizedthe loans had a prepayment penalty. These loanswhich serve as collateral for our mortgage securities – available-for-sale.had a prepayment penalty. As of December 31, 2004, 65%2006, 60% of our mortgage loans - held-for-saleon our balance sheet had a prepayment penalty, which serve as collateral for our short-term borrowings.penalty. During 2004, 72%2006, 62% of the loans we originated and purchased had prepayment penalties.

Regulatory Risk

Risk.As a mortgage lender, we are subject to many laws and regulations. Any failure to comply with these rules and their interpretations or with any future interpretations or judicial decisions could harm our profitability or cause a change in the way we do business. For example, several lawsuits have been filed challenging types of payments made by mortgage lenders to mortgage brokers. Similarly,

State and local governing bodies are focused on the nonconforming lending business and are concerned about borrowers paying “excessive fees” in obtaining a mortgage loan – generally termed “predatory lending”. In several instances, states or local governing bodies have imposed strict laws on lenders to curb predatory lending. To date, these laws have not had a significant impact on our branch operations, we allowbusiness. We have capped fee structures consistent with those adopted by federal mortgage agencies and have implemented rigid processes to ensure that our branch managers considerable autonomy, which could result in our facing greater exposure to third-party claims if our compliance programslending practices are not strictly adhered to.predatory in nature.

Several states and cities are considering or have passed laws, regulations or ordinances aimed at curbing predatory lending practices. The federal government is also considering legislative and regulatory proposals in this regard. In general, these proposals involve loweringWe regularly monitor the existing federal Homeownership and Equity Protection Act thresholds for defining a “high-cost” loan, and establishing enhanced protections and remedies for borrowers who receive such loans. Passage of these laws and rules could reduce our loan origination volume. In addition, many whole loan buyers may elect not to purchase any loan labeled as a “high cost” loan under any local, state or federal law or regulation. Rating agencies likewise may refuse to rate securities backed by such loans. Accordingly, these laws and rules could severely restrict the secondary market for a significant portion of our loan production. This would effectively preclude us from continuing to originate loans either in jurisdictions unacceptable to the rating agencies or otherwise within newly defined thresholds and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Recently enacted and effective laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and disclosure requirements applicable to public companies, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, new Securities and Exchange Commission regulations and New York Stock Exchange rules have increased the costs of corporate governance, reporting and disclosure practices. These costs may increase in the future due to our continuing implementation of compliance programs mandated by these requirements. In addition, these new laws, rules and regulations create newthat apply to our business and analyze any changes to them. We integrate many legal bases for administrative enforcement and civilregulatory requirements into our automated loan origination system to reduce inadvertent non-compliance due to human error. We also maintain policies and criminal proceedings against us in case of non-compliance, thereby increasingprocedures, summaries and checklists to help our risks of liabilityorigination personnel comply with these laws. Our training programs are designed to teach our personnel about the significant laws, rules and potential sanctions.regulations that affect their job responsibilities.

Other Risk Factors

Although management considers the risk components set forth above to be its primary business risks, the following are other risks that should be considered by our investors. Further information regarding these risks is included in our registration statements filed with the Commission.

•

Loans made to nonconforming mortgage borrowers entail relatively higher delinquency and loss rates.Lenders in the nonconforming mortgage banking industry make loans to borrowers who have impaired or limited credit histories, limited documentation of income and higher debt-to-income ratios than traditional mortgage lenders allow. Mortgage loans made to nonconforming mortgage loan borrowers generally entail a relatively higher risk of delinquency and foreclosure than mortgage loans made to borrowers with better credit and, therefore, may result in higher levels of realized losses. Any failure by us to adequately address the risks of nonconforming lending would harm our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences

The following general discussion summarizes the material U.S. federal income tax considerations regarding our qualification and taxation as a REIT. This discussion is based on interpretations of the Code, regulations issued thereunder, and rulings and decisions currently in effect (or in some cases proposed), all of which are subject to change. Any such change may be applied retroactively and may adversely affect the federal income tax consequences described herein. This summary does not discuss all of the tax consequences that may be relevant to particular shareholders or shareholders subject to special treatment under the federal income tax laws. Accordingly, you should consult your own tax advisor regarding the federal, state, local, foreign, and other tax consequences of your ownership of our common stock and our REIT status and any termination of our REIT status, and regarding potential changes in applicable tax laws.

General.Since inception, we have elected to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856 through 859 of the Code. We believe we have complied, and intend to comply in the future for so long as we remain a REIT, with the requirements for qualification as a REIT under the Code. To the extent that we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we generally will not be subject to federal income tax on the amount of income or gain that is distributed to shareholders. However, origination and broker operations are conducted through NovaStar Mortgage, and NovaStar Home Mortgage, which areis owned by NFI Holding Corporation, Inc. – a taxable REIT subsidiary (TRS)(“TRS”). Consequently, all of the taxable income of NFI Holding Corporation, Inc. is subject to federal and state corporate income taxes. In general, a TRS may hold assets that a REIT cannot hold directly and generally may engage in any real estate or non-real estate related business. However, special rules do apply to certain activities between a REIT and its TRS. For example, a TRS will be subject to earnings stripping limitations on the deductibility of interest paid to its REIT. In addition, a REIT will be subject to a 100% excise tax on certain excess amounts to ensure that (i) tenants who payamounts paid to a TRS for services are based on amounts that would be charged in an arm’s-length amount by the TRS,transaction, (ii) fees paid to a REIT by its TRS are reflected at fair market value and (iii) interest paid by a TRS to its REIT is commercially reasonable.

The REIT rules generally require that a REIT invest primarily in real estate related assets, that its activities be passive rather than active and that it distribute annually to its shareholders substantially all of its taxable income. We could be subject to a number of taxes if we failed to satisfy those rules or if we acquired certain types of income-producing real property through foreclosure. Although no complete assurance can be given, we do not expect that we will be subject to material amounts of such taxes.

Failure to satisfy certain Code requirements could cause loss of REIT status. If we fail to qualify, or elect to terminate our status, as a REIT for any taxable year, we would be subject to federal income tax (including any applicable minimum tax) at regular corporate rates and would not receive deductions for dividends paid to shareholders. As a result, the amount of after-tax earnings available for distribution to shareholders would decrease substantially. While we intend to operate in a manner that will enable us to qualify as a REIT in future taxable years, there can be no certainty that such intention will be realized.

Qualification as a REIT. Qualification as a REIT requires that we satisfy a variety of tests relating to income, assets, distributions and ownership.ownership so long as we remain a REIT. The significant tests are summarized below.

Sources of IncomeIncome.. WeTo qualify as a REIT, we must satisfy two tests with respect to the sourcesgross income requirements, each of income: the 75% income test, and the 95% income test. The 75% income test requires that we derivewhich is applied on an annual basis. First, at least 75% of our gross income, excluding gross income from prohibited transactions, for each taxable year generally must be derived directly or indirectly from:

Second, at least 95% of our gross income, excluding gross income from prohibited transactions, for each taxable year must be derived from the same sources asthat qualify for purposes of the 75% gross income test, and from (i) dividends, (ii) interest, (iii) certain qualifying hedges entered into prior to January 1, 2005 and (iv) gain from the sale or from dividendsother disposition of stock, securities, or, interest from any source. certain qualifying hedges entered into prior to January 1, 2005.

Management believes that we were in compliance with both of the income tests for the 20042006 and 20032005 calendar years.

Nature and Diversification of AssetsAssets.. As of the last day of each calendar quarter, we must meet six requirements under the two asset tests. Under the 75% of assets test, at least 75% of the value of our total assets must represent cash or cash items (including receivables), government securities or real estate assets. Under the 25% of assets test, no more than 25% of the value of our total assets can be represented by securities, other than (A) government securities, (B) stock of a qualified REIT subsidiary and (C) securities that qualify as real estate assets under the 75% assets test (collectively((A), (B) and (C) are collectively the “75% Securities”). Additionally, under the 25% assets test, no more than 20% of the value of our total assets can be represented by securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries and no more than 5% of the value of our total assets can be represented by the securities of a single issuer, excluding 75% Securities. Furthermore, we may not own more than 10% of the total voting power or the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer, excluding 75% Securities.

If we inadvertently fail to satisfy one or more of the asset tests at the end of a calendar quarter, such failure would not cause us to lose our REIT status. We could still avoid disqualification by eliminating any discrepancy within 30 days after the close of the calendar quarter in which the discrepancy arose. Management believes that we arewere in compliance with all of the requirements of both asset tests for all quarters during 20042006 and 2003.2005.

Ownership of Common StockStock.. Our capital stock must be held by a minimum of 100 persons for at least 335 days of each year. In addition, at all times during the second half of each taxable year, no more than 50% in value of our capital stock may be owned directly or indirectly by 5 or fewer individuals. We use the calendar year as our taxable year for income tax purposes. The Code requires us to send annual information questionnaires to specified shareholders in order to assure compliance with the ownership tests. Management believes that we have complied with these stock ownership tests for 20042006 and 2003.2005.

DistributionsDistributions.. WeTo maintain REIT status, we must distribute at least 90% of our taxable income and any after-tax net income from certain types of foreclosure property less any non-cash income. No distributions are required in periods in which there is no taxable income. Management believes that we have complied with these distribution requirements for 2005 and intends to comply with these requirements with respect to 2006 taxable income.

Taxable IncomeIncome.. We use the calendar year for both tax and financial reporting purposes. However, there may be differences between taxable income may, and in our case does, differ from income computed in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP).GAAP. These differences primarily arise from timing and character differences in the recognition of revenue and expense and gains and losses for tax and GAAP purposes. Additionally, taxable income that is subject to the distribution requirement does not include the taxable income of our taxable subsidiary,TRS, although the subsidiary’s operating results are included in our GAAP results.

Personnel

As of December 31, 2004,2006, we employed 3,5022,048 people. Of these, 1,738 were employed inManagement believes that relations with its employees are good. None of our mortgage portfolio management and mortgage lending and loan servicing operations. Our branches employed 1,721 people as of December 31, 2004. The remaining employees were employed in our branch administrative functions.are represented by a union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Available Information

A copyCopies of the filings we have madeour annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to these reports filed or furnished with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may be obtained onSEC are available free of charge through our Internet site (www.novastarmortgage.com) as soon as reasonably practicable after filing with the SEC. References to our website (www.novastarmortgage.com), throughdo not incorporate by reference the information on such website into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and we disclaim any such incorporation by reference. Copies of our board committee charters, our board’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Conduct, and other corporate governance information are available at the SEC (www.sec.gov)Corporate Governance section of our Internet site (www.novastarmortgage.com), or by contacting us directly. Our investor relations contact information follows.

Investor Relations

8140 Ward Parkway, Suite 300

Kansas City, MO 64114

816.237.7000816.237.7424

Email: ir@novastar1.com

Item 1A.Risk Factors

Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the risks described below before investing in our publicly traded securities. The risks described below are not the only ones facing us. Our business is also subject to the risks that affect many other companies, such as competition, inflation, technological obsolescence, labor relations, general economic conditions and geopolitical events. Additional risks not currently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial also may impair our business, operations and our liquidity.

Risks Related to Securitization, Loan Sale, and Borrowing Activities

Our growth is dependent on leverage, which may create other risks.

Our success is dependent, in part, upon our ability to grow our assets through the use of leverage. Leverage creates an opportunity for increased net income, but at the same time creates risks. For example, while we will incur leverage only when there is an expectation that it will enhance returns, leveraging magnifies both positive and negative changes in our net worth. In addition, there can be no assurance that we will be able to meet our debt service obligations and, to the extent that we cannot, our financial condition and our ability to meet minimum REIT dividend requirements will be materially and adversely affected. Furthermore, if we were to liquidate, our debt holders and lenders will receive a distribution of our available assets before any distributions are made to our common shareholders.

An interruption or reduction in the securitization market or our ability to access this market would harm our financial position.

We are dependent on the securitization market for long-term financing of our origination and purchase of mortgage loans and mortgage securities, which we initially finance with our short-term financing. In addition, many of the buyers of our whole loans purchase the loans with the intention of securitizing them. A disruption in the securitization market could prevent us from being able to sell loans or mortgage securities at a favorable price or at all. Factors that could disrupt the securitization market include an international liquidity crisis such as occurred in the fall of 1998, sudden changes in interest rates, changes in the non-conforming loan market, a terrorist attack, an outbreak of war or other significant event risk, and market specific events such as a default under a comparable type of securitization. Further, poor performance of our previously securitized loans could harm our access to the securitization market.

In addition, a court recently found a lender and securitization underwriter liable for consumer fraud committed by a company to whom they provided financing and underwriting services. In the event other courts or regulators adopted the same liability theory, lenders and underwriters could be named as defendants in more litigation and as a result they may exit the business or charge more for their services, all of which could have a negative impact on our ability to securitize our mortgage loans and mortgage securities and the securitization market in general.

A decline in our ability to obtain long-term funding for our mortgage loans or mortgage securities in the securitization market in general or on attractive terms or a decline in the market’s demand for our mortgage loans or mortgage securities could harm our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects and could result in defaults under our short term financing arrangements for these assets.

We may not be able to continue to sell our mortgage loans on terms and conditions that are profitable to us.

A portion of our revenues comes from the gains on sale generated by sales of pools of our mortgage loans as whole loans. We make whole loan sales to a limited number of institutional purchasers, some of which may be frequent, repeat purchasers, and others of which may make only one or a few purchases from us. We cannot assure you that we will continue to have purchasers for our loans on terms and conditions that will be profitable to us. Also, even though our mortgage loans are generally marketable to multiple purchasers, certain loans may be marketable to only one or a few purchasers, thereby increasing the risk that we may be unable to sell such loans at a profit.

Failure to renew or obtain adequate funding under warehouse repurchase agreements may harm our business.

We are dependent upon several warehouse repurchase agreements to provide short term financing for our origination and purchase of mortgage loans pending their sale or securitization. In addition, we utilize warehouse repurchase agreements for short and medium term financing for our purchase and retention of mortgage securities. Under a warehouse repurchase agreement, we sell an asset and agree to repurchase the same asset at some point in time in the future. Generally, the repurchase agreements we enter into require monthly roll-over repurchase transactions, with a six- to nine-month maximum financing period for mortgage loans and a three-year maximum financing period for securities retained from our mortgage loan securitizations. For financial accounting purposes, these arrangements are treated as secured financings. We retain the assets on our balance sheet and record an obligation to repurchase the assets. The amount we may borrow under these arrangements is generally 95% to 100% of the asset market value with respect to performing mortgage loans and 70% to 80% of the asset market value with respect to nonperforming mortgage loans. Additionally, the amount we may borrow under these arrangements is generally 40% to 95% of the asset market value with respect to mortgage securities depending on the investment rating.

These warehouse repurchase agreements contain numerous representations, warranties and covenants, including requirements to maintain a certain minimum net worth, to maintain minimum equity ratios, to maintain our REIT status, and other customary debt covenants. Events of default under these facilities include material breaches of representations and warranties, failure to comply with covenants, material adverse effects upon or changes in our business, assets, or financial condition, and other customary matters. Events of default under certain of our facilities also include termination of our status as servicer with respect to certain securitized loan pools and failure to maintain profitability over consecutive quarters. If we were unable to make the necessary representations and warranties at the time we need financing, we would not be able to obtain needed funds. In addition, if we default under any warehouse repurchase agreement under which borrowings are then outstanding, the lenders under substantially all of our existing warehouse repurchase agreements could demand immediate payment of all outstanding amounts pursuant to cross-default provisions. Any failure to renew or obtain adequate funding under these financing arrangements for any reason, or any demand by warehouse lenders for immediate payment of outstanding balances, could harm our lending and loan purchase operations and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects. In addition, an increase in the cost of warehouse financing in excess of any change in the income derived from our mortgage assets could also harm our earnings and reduce the cash available for distribution to our shareholders. In October 1998, the subprime mortgage loan market faced a liquidity crisis with respect to the availability of short-term borrowings from major lenders and long-term borrowings through securitization. At that time, we faced significant liquidity constraints which harmed our business and our profitability. There is no assurance that a comparable situation will not occur in the future.

A decline in the market value of mortgage assets financed under our warehouse finance arrangements may result in margin calls or similar obligations, which may require that we liquidate assets at a disadvantageous time.

When, in a lender’s opinion, the market value of assets subject to a warehouse repurchase agreement decreases for any reason, including a rise in interest rates or general concern about the value or liquidity of the assets, we are required to repay the margin or difference in market value, or post additional collateral. If cash or additional collateral is unavailable to meet margin calls, we may default on our obligations under the applicable repurchase agreement, which would cross-default substantially all of our warehouse repurchase agreements. In that event, our lenders would have the right to liquidate the collateral we provided them to settle the amount due from us and, in general, the right to recover any deficiency from us.

In addition, we utilize warehouse financing arrangements for the accumulation of third-party mortgage-backed securities and related credit default derivatives for purposes of CDO offerings. Under these arrangements, the financing party has the right to liquidate any assets that decline in credit quality or fail to continue to meet eligibility requirements, and the right to liquidate the entire pool of financed assets if the related CDO offering does not occur by a specified date. If a liquidation results in a net loss, we are required to pay to the financing party the amount of the net loss.

In order to obtain cash to satisfy a margin call or a net loss payment obligation, 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 and financial condition. In addition, an unplanned liquidation of assets could change our mix of investments, which in turn could jeopardize our REIT status or our ability to rely on certain exemptions under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”).

We may be required to repurchase mortgage loans or indemnify mortgage loan purchasers as a result of breaches of representations and warranties, borrower fraud, or certain borrower defaults, which could harm our liquidity, results of operations and financial condition.

When we sell mortgage loans, whether as whole loans or pursuant to a securitization, we are required to make customary representations and warranties to the purchaser about the mortgage loans and the manner in which they were originated. Our whole loan sale agreements require us to repurchase or substitute mortgage loans in the event we breach any of these representations or warranties. In addition, we may be required to repurchase mortgage loans as a result of borrower fraud or in the event of early payment default on a mortgage loan. Likewise, we are required to repurchase or substitute mortgage loans if we breach a representation or warranty in connection with our securitizations. The remedies available to us against the originating broker or correspondent may not be as broad as the remedies available to a purchaser of mortgage loans against us, and we face the further risk that the originating broker or correspondent may not have the financial capacity to perform remedies that otherwise may be available to us. Therefore, if a purchaser enforces its remedies against us, we may not be able to recover losses from the originating broker or correspondent. Repurchased loans are typically sold at a significant discount to the unpaid principal balance and, prior to sale, can be financed by us, if at all, only at a steep discount to our cost. As a result, significant repurchase activity could harm our liquidity, cash flow, results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

Recently, we have received an increased number of repurchase and indemnity demands from purchasers of whole loans as a result of borrower fraud and early borrower payment defaults, which has had a negative impact on our results of operations. While we have taken steps to enhance our underwriting policies and procedures, there can be no assurance that these steps will be effective. To the extent that repurchase and indemnity demands continue at this rate or increase, our results of operations and financial condition will be adversely affected.

Our investments in mortgage securities and loans are subject to changes in credit spreads which could adversely affect our ability to realize gains on the sale of such investments and may subject us to margin calls or similar liquidity requirements.

The value of mortgage securities is dependent on the yield demanded on these securities by the market based on their credit relative LIBOR. Excessive supply of these securities combined with reduced demand will generally cause the market to require a higher yield on these securities, resulting in the use of a higher, or “wider,” spread over the benchmark rate (usually the applicable LIBOR security yield) to value such securities. Under such conditions, the value of our mortgage securities portfolio would tend to decline. Conversely, if the spread used to value such securities were to decrease, or “tighten,” the value of our mortgage securities portfolio would tend to increase.

Our loan portfolio is also subject to changes in credit spreads. The value of these loans is dependent on the yield demanded by the market based on their credit relative to LIBOR. The value of our loans would tend to decline should the market require a higher yield on such loans, resulting in the use of a higher spread over the benchmark rate (usually the applicable LIBOR yield). Conversely, if the spread used to value such loans were to decrease, or “tighten,” the value of our loan portfolio would tend to increase.

A decrease in the value of our loans or mortgage securities would reduce our ability to realize gains upon the sale or securitization of these assets and, with respect to mortgage securities (which are marked to market quarterly), could result in impairments for securities classified as available-for-sale or mark-to-market losses for securities classified as trading.. In addition, a decrease in the value of our mortgage loans or securities reduces the funds available to us in respect of these assets under our warehouse repurchase agreements and may result in margin calls. Further, a decrease in the value of third party mortgage securities that we have accumulated for the purpose of a CDO offering may reduce the availability or attractiveness of the CDO offering, in which case we may be required to seek other forms of potentially less attractive longer-term financing or to liquidate the assets on unfavorable terms.

We retain and assume credit risk under a variety of mortgage securities and similar assets in connection with and as a result of our securitization activities. Significant losses on these assets reduce our earnings, negatively affect our liquidity, and otherwise negatively affect our business.

We retain certain residual securities resulting from our securitizations of mortgage loans, which typically consist of interest-only, prepayment penalty, and overcollateralization bonds. We also retain from our securitizations, as well as purchase from 3^rd party ABS issuers, certain investment grade and non-investment grade rated subordinated mortgage securities. The residual securities are typically unrated or rated below investment grade and, as such, involve significant investment risk that exceeds the aggregate risk of the full pool of securitized loans. By holding the residual securities, we retain the “first loss” risk associated with the underlying pool of mortgage loans. As a result, the credit performance and prepayment rates of the sub-prime loans underlying these mortgage securities directly affect our returns on these mortgage securities. Significant realized losses from our residual and subordinated mortgage securities could harm our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, because we finance these securities under medium-term warehouse repurchase agreements, decreases in the value of these retained securities may result in margin calls and adversely affect our liquidity.

We invest in or assume financial risk associated with mortgage securities issued by third party residential real estate loan securitization entities, most of which are backed by sub-prime loans. In addition, following a CDO offering, we retain equity or unsecured debt securities of the CDO issuer. We expect to increase our investment in third party mortgage securities and CDO issuer equity and debt securities and, consequently, to increase our credit and prepayment exposure to the assets that underlie these securities. A significant portion of these third party mortgage securities consists of securities that are subordinate to other securities secured by the same pool of assets and, as such, have significant investment risk. Generally, we do not control or influence the underwriting, servicing, management, or loss mitigation efforts with respect to the assets underlying securities issued by securitizations we do not sponsor. If the asset pools underlying any of these securities were to experience poor credit results, the market value of the third party securities that we hold directly and of our equity interest in or unsecured debt of a CDO issuer could decrease. Significant realized losses from third party mortgage securities, directly or indirectly through our interest in a CDO issuer, could harm our results from operations, liquidity, and financial condition.

Further, we may enter into or assume financial risk associated with ABS credit default swaps or similar derivatives, referred to a “synthetic securities,” in contemplation of the transfer of such synthetic securities to a CDO issuer in connection with our CDO offerings. Under these synthetic securities, we may assume, in exchange for a premium, payment and credit risk associated with third party mortgage securities. In addition to the risks associated with the third party securities to which the synthetic security relates, synthetic securities are unsecured and would expose us to the risk of payment default by the swap counterparty and to risks associated with the determination of settlement payments upon a credit event relating to the referenced mortgage securities or other settlement event. In addition, the market for synthetic securities of this type is not highly liquid and, as such, we may not be able to realize the full value of a synthetic security in the event we need to liquidate or dispose of the synthetic security, which could negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition.

Credit results with respect to mortgage assets underlying our securitizations may negatively affect our access to the securitization market on favorable terms, which in turn would harm our financial condition and prospects.

If the non-conforming loan industry continues to experience credit difficulties, our ability to access the securitization market on favorable terms may be negatively affected. In addition if the pools of mortgage loans underlying our securitizations of mortgage loans or indirectly underlying our securitizations of mortgage securities were to experience poor credit results, the securities issued in these securitizations could have their credit ratings down-graded, could suffer losses in market value, and could experience principal losses. In addition to reducing the long-term returns and near-term cash flows from the securities we have retained or acquired in these transactions, any of the foregoing may reduce our ability to sponsor securitization transactions, including CDO offerings, in the future.

Competition in the securitization market may erode our securitization margins, which in turn may adversely affect or harm our financial condition and prospects.

Competition in the business of sponsoring securitizations of the type we focus on is increasing as Wall Street broker-dealers, hedge funds, mortgage REITs, investment management companies, and other financial institutions expand their activities or enter this field. Increased competition could reduce our securitization margins. To the extent that our securitization margins erode, our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects will be negatively impacted.

Differences in our actual experience compared to the assumptions that we use to determine the value of our residual mortgage securities could adversely affect our financial position.

Our securitizations of mortgage loans that are structured as sales for financial reporting purposes result in gain recognition at closing as well as the recording of the residual mortgage securities we retain at fair value. As of December 31, 2006 we had retained residual mortgage securities from our securitizations of mortgage loans with a fair value of $349.3 million on our balance sheet.

Delinquency, loss, prepayment and discount rate assumptions have a material impact on the amount of gain recognized and on the carrying value of our residual mortgage securities. It is extremely difficult to validate the assumptions we use in determining the amount of gain on sale and the value of our residual mortgage securities. If our actual experience differs materially from the assumptions that we use to determine our gain on sale or the value of these mortgage securities, our future cash flows, our financial condition and our results of operations could be negatively affected.

The value of residual interests represents the present value of future cash flows expected to be received by us from the excess cash flows created in the securitization transaction. In general, future cash flows are estimated by taking the coupon rate of the loans underlying the transaction less the interest rate paid to the investors, less contractually specified servicing and trustee fees, and after giving effect to estimated prepayments and credit losses. We estimate future cash flows from these securities and value them utilizing assumptions based in part on projected discount rates, delinquency, mortgage loan prepayment speeds and credit losses. It is extremely difficult to validate the assumptions we use in valuing our residual interests. Even if the general accuracy of the valuation model is validated, valuations are highly dependent upon the reasonableness of our assumptions and the predictability of the relationships which drive the results of the model. Such assumptions are complex as we must make judgments about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain. If our actual experience differs from our assumptions, we would be required to reduce the value of these securities.Furthermore, if our actual experience differs materially from these assumptions, our cash flow, financial condition, results of operations and business prospects may be harmed, including an adverse affect on the amount of dividend payments that are made on our common stock.

Changes in accounting standards might cause us to alter the way we structure or account for securitizations.

Changes could be made to current accounting standards, which could affect the way we structure or account for securitizations. For example, if changes were made in the types of transactions eligible for gain on sale treatment, we may have to change the way we account for securitizations, which may harm our results of operations or financial condition.

The rate at which we are able to acquire eligible mortgage loans or mortgage securities and changes in market conditions during asset accumulation may adversely affect our anticipated returns from the securitization of these assets.

We use short term warehouse financing arrangements to finance the acquisition of mortgage loans and mortgage securities until a sufficient quantity of assets is accumulated, at which time we may refinance these lines through a securitization or other long term financing. As a result, we are subject to the risk that we will not be able to acquire, during the period in which the relevant warehouse facility is available for the funding of such assets, a sufficient amount of eligible securities to maximize the efficiency of a securitization. In addition, changes in conditions in the capital markets may make a securitization less attractive to us by the time we do have a sufficient pool of collateral. If we are unable to securitize these assets, we may be required to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or otherwise to liquidate the assets on unfavorable terms.

Market factors may limit our ability to originate and acquire mortgage assets at yields that are favorable relative to costs.

Despite our experience in the origination and acquisition of mortgage assets and our relationships with brokers and sellers of mortgage assets, we face the risk that we might not be able to originate or acquire mortgage assets that earn interest rates greater than our cost of funds under our short-term borrowings and securitizations, or that we might not be able to originate or acquire a sufficient number of such mortgage assets to maintain our profitability. An inability to originate or purchase sufficient volumes of loans and mortgage securities at a cost lower than the net cash proceeds realized from their sale or securitization would materially harm our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

We have recently imposed stricter mortgage loan and borrower requirements, which may result in a decrease in our mortgage loan origination and purchase volumes and, consequently, our loan sale and securitization volumes.

As a result of less favorable economic conditions and an increase in the number of fraudulently obtained loans and borrower defaults, we have tightened our mortgage loan lending and purchase requirements and the processes we undergo to document loans. There may be fewer borrowers and loans that qualify under these revised standards, and we may face increased competition from lenders and loan purchasers with less rigorous standards. As a result, our loan origination and purchase volumes may decline. A decline in our loan origination or purchase volumes would decrease the volume of assets available to us for sale or securitization, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to Interest Rates and Our Hedging Strategies

Changes in interest rates may harm our results of operations and equity value.

Our results of operations are likely to be harmed during any period of unexpected or rapid changes in interest rates. Our primary interest rate exposures relate to our mortgage securities, mortgage loans, floating rate debt obligations, interest rate swaps, and interest rate caps. Interest rate changes could adversely affect our results of operations and liquidity in the following ways:

In addition, interest rate changes may also impact our net book value as our mortgage securities and related hedge derivatives are marked to market each quarter. Our mortgage loans and debt obligations are not marked to market. Generally, as interest rates increase, the value of our mortgage securities decrease which decreases the book value of our equity. We intend to increase our investment in mortgage securities, which may amplify the impact of interest rate changes on our book value.

Furthermore, shifts in the yield curve, which represents the market’s expectations of future interest rates, also affects the yield required for the purchase of our mortgage securities and therefore their value. To the extent that there is an unexpected change in the yield curve it could have an adverse effect on our mortgage securities portfolio and our financial position and operations.

Hedging against interest rate exposure may adversely affect our earnings, which could adversely affect cash available for operations and for distribution to our shareholders.

There are limits on the ability of our hedging strategy to protect us completely against interest rate risks. When interest rates change, we expect the gain or loss on derivatives to be offset by a related but inverse change in the value of the hedged items, generally our liabilities. We cannot assure you, however, that our use of derivatives will offset the risks related to changes in interest rates. We cannot assure you that our hedging strategy and the derivatives that we use will adequately offset the risk of interest rate volatility or that our hedging transactions will not result in losses. We may enter into interest rate cap or swap agreements or pursue other interest rate hedging strategies. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on interest rates, the type of mortgage assets held, other changing market conditions and, so long as we remain a REIT, compliance with REIT requirements. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:

Any hedging activity we engage in may adversely affect our earnings, which could adversely affect cash available for operations and for distribution to our shareholders. Unanticipated changes in interest rates may result in poorer overall investment performance than if we had not engaged in any such hedging transactions.

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

We attempt to minimize exposure to interest rate fluctuations by hedging. The REIT provisions of the Code limit our ability to hedge mortgage assets and related borrowings by requiring us to limit our income in each year from any qualified hedges, together with any other income not generated from qualified real estate assets, to no more than 25% of our gross income. The interest rate hedges that we generally enter into will not be counted as a qualified asset for the purposes of satisfying this requirement. In addition, under the Code, we must limit our aggregate income from non-qualified hedging transactions and from other non-qualifying sources to no more than 5% of our annual gross income. As a result, we may have to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques. This could result in greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to incur. In addition, if it is ultimately determined that some of our interest rate hedging transactions are non-qualified under the Code; we may have more than 5% of our annual gross income from non-qualified sources. If we violate the 5% or 25% limitations, we may have to pay a penalty tax equal to the amount of income in excess of those limitations, multiplied by a fraction intended to reflect our profitability. In addition, if we fail to observe these limitations, we could lose our REIT status unless our failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

Risks Related to Credit Losses and Prepayment Rates

Loans made to nonconforming mortgage borrowers entail relatively higher delinquency and default rates which will result in higher loan losses.

Lenders in the nonconforming mortgage banking industry make loans to borrowers who have impaired or limited credit histories, limited documentation of income and higher debt-to-income ratios than traditional mortgage lenders allow. Mortgage loans made to nonconforming mortgage loan borrowers generally entail a relatively higher risk of delinquency and foreclosure than mortgage loans made to borrowers with better credit and, therefore, will result in higher levels of realized losses than conventional loans. Delinquency interrupts the flow of projected interest income from a mortgage loan, and default can ultimately lead to a loss if the net realizable value of the real property securing the mortgage loan is insufficient to cover the principal and interest due on the loan. Loans that become delinquent prior to sale or securitization may become unsaleable or saleable only at a discount, and the longer we hold loans prior to sale or securitization, the greater the chance we will bear all costs associated with the loans’ delinquency. Also, our cost of financing and servicing a delinquent or defaulted loan is generally higher than for a performing loan.

We bear the risk of delinquency and default on loans beginning when we originate them. In whole loan sales, our risk of delinquency and default typically only extends until the borrower makes the first payment but can extend up to the third payment. When we securitize any of our loans, we continue to be exposed to delinquencies and losses, either through our residual interests for securitizations structured as sales or through the loans that remain on our balance sheet for securitizations structured as financings. We also re-acquire the risks of delinquency and default for loans that we are obligated to repurchase.

We attempt to manage these risks with risk based mortgage loan pricing and appropriate underwriting criteria and policies and loan collection methods. However, as with the broader nonconforming mortgage loan industry, we have recently experienced an increase in borrower delinquencies and defaults, which has adversely affected our cash flows, results of operations and financial condition. While we have taken steps to tighten our underwriting guidelines and procedures, there can be no assurance that these steps will be effective. To the extent that we cannot successfully address these issues, or the increase in delinquencies and defaults becomes more severe, our results of operations and financial condition may be further adversely affected.

We face loss exposure due to fraudulent and negligent acts on the part of loan applicants, employees, mortgage brokers and other third parties.

When we originate or purchase mortgage loans, we rely heavily upon information provided to us by third parties, including information relating to the loan application, property appraisal, title information and employment and income documentation. If any of this information is fraudulently or negligently misrepresented to us and such misrepresentation is not detected by us prior to loan funding, the value of the loan may be significantly lower than we expected. Whether a misrepresentation is made by the loan applicant, the loan broker, one of our employees, or any other third party, we generally bear the risk of loss associated with it. A loan subject to misrepresentation typically cannot be sold and, if sold prior to our detection of the misrepresentation, generally must be repurchased by us. We may not be able to recover losses incurred as a result of the misrepresentation.

As with the broader nonconforming mortgage loan industry, we have recently experienced an increase in exposure due to fraud, which has resulted in an increase in our repurchase and indemnity obligations and has adversely affected our cash flow, results of operations and financial condition. To the extent that we cannot successfully address these issues or the increase in fraud becomes more severe, our results of operations and financial condition may be further adversely affected.

Our reliance on cash-out refinancings as a significant source of our origination volume increases the risk that our earnings will be harmed if the demand for this type of refinancing declines.

Approximately 65% of our loan production volume during the year ended December 31, 2006 consisted of cash-out refinancings. Our reliance on cash-out refinancings as a significant source of our origination volume increases the risk that our earnings will be reduced if interest rates rise and the prices of homes decline, which would reduce the demand and production volume for this type of refinancing. To the extent interest rates continue to rise, the number of borrowers who would qualify or elect to pursue a cash-out refinancing could be reduced significantly, which will result in a decline in that origination source. Similarly, a decrease in home prices would reduce the amount of equity available to be borrowed against in cash-out refinancings and result in a decrease in our loan production volume from that origination source. Therefore, our reliance on cash-out refinancings as a significant source of our origination volume could harm our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

Our efforts to manage credit risk may not be successful in limiting delinquencies and defaults in underlying loans and, as a result, our results of operations may be affected.

There are many aspects of credit that we cannot control and our quality control and loss mitigation operations may not be successful in limiting future delinquencies, defaults and losses. For example, the value of the homes collateralizing residential loans may decline due to a variety of reasons beyond our control, such as weak economic conditions, natural disasters, over-leveraging of the borrower, and reduction in personal incomes. Interest-only loans, negative amortization loans, adjustable-rate loans, reduced documentation loans, sub-prime loans, home equity lines of credit and second lien loans may involve higher than expected delinquencies and defaults. Changes in consumer behavior, bankruptcy laws, and other laws may exacerbate loan losses.

Our comprehensive underwriting process may not be effective in mitigating these risks and our risk of loss on the underlying loans. Further, expanded loss mitigation efforts in the event that defaults increase could increase our operating costs. In response to increasing default rates recently experienced by us and the nonconforming mortgage loan industry generally, we have enhanced our underwriting policies and procedures, which may decrease our ability to originate and purchase loans. To the extent that these efforts are ineffective to reduce the current level of loan delinquencies and defaults or adversely affect our origination and purchase volumes, our results of operations may be adversely affected.

Mortgage insurers may in the future change their pricing or underwriting guidelines or may not pay claims resulting in increased credit losses.

We use mortgage insurance to mitigate our risk of credit losses. Our decision to obtain mortgage insurance coverage is dependent, in part, on pricing trends. Mortgage insurance coverage on our new mortgage loan production may not be available at rates that we believe are economically viable for us or at all. We also face the risk that our mortgage insurers might not have the financial ability to pay all claims presented by us or may deny a claim if the loan is not properly serviced, has been improperly originated, is the subject of fraud, or for other reasons. Any of those events could increase our credit losses and thus adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Investments in diverse types of assets and businesses could expose us to new, different, or increased risks.

We have invested in and intend to invest in a variety of assets that are related to our current core business, including loans, securities, and related derivatives. We may make investments in debt and equity securities issued by our own and third party CDOs that own various types of assets. These CDOs may invest in manufactured housing loans, sub-prime residential mortgage loans, and other residential mortgage loans backed by lower-quality borrowers, in other loans and receivables, in securities backed by the foregoing, and in credit default derivatives referencing these or other securities. The higher credit and/or prepayment risks associated with these types of investments may increase our exposure to losses. In addition, certain of these assets may be relatively new or unique products, which may increase contractual and liquidity risks.

The federal banking agencies’ final guidance on nontraditional mortgage products may impact our ability to originate, buy, or sell certain nontraditional mortgage loans.

On October 4, 2006, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration issued their final “Interagency Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Product Risks” (the “Guidance”). Nontraditional mortgage products are those which allow borrowers to defer payment of principal and sometimes interest. They include what are commonly referred to as “option ARM” loans and interest-only loans.

The Guidance addresses the portfolio risks and consumer protection issues that the federal agencies believe investors and lenders face when making or investing in nontraditional mortgage loans. As a matter of portfolio risk management, the Guidance warns applicable financial institutions that loan terms should be analyzed to ensure a manageable risk level, utilizing sound underwriting standards including an evaluation of factors that may compound the risk, such as reduced documentation programs and the use of second lien mortgages. The analysis of repayment ability “should avoid over-reliance on credit scores as a substitute for income verification in the underwriting process” and should include an analysis of the borrower’s ability to make the payment when it increases to include amortization of the loan.

As a matter of consumer protection, financial institutions subject to the Guidance, when promoting or describing nontraditional mortgage products, are directed to ensure that they provide consumers with marketing materials and at application with information that is designed to help them make informed decisions when selecting and using these products. Lenders subject to the Guidance are instructed that the information they are to provide should apprise consumers of the risk that the monthly payment amounts could increase in the future, and explain the possibility of negative amortization.

While not directly applicable to us, the Guidance may affect our ability to make, buy or sell the nontraditional loans covered by the Guidance. Further, the Guidance is instructive of the regulatory climate concerning those loans and may be adopted in whole or part by other agencies that regulate us. The Guidance reports that the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”) and the State Financial Regulators Roundtable (“SFRR”) are committed to preparing a model guidance document for state regulators of non-depository institutions such as us, which would be “similar in nature and scope” to the Guidance. It is also possible that the Guidance, or certain provisions within it, may be adopted as laws or used as guidance by federal, state or local agencies and that those laws or guidance may be applied to us.

If we are required (either by a regulatory agency or by third-party originators or investors) to make changes to our business practices to comply with the Guidance, it might affect the business activities in which we may engage and the profitability of those activities. Our business could be adversely affected if, as a result of the Guidance, investors from which we purchase loans, or to whom we sell loans, change their business practices and policies relative to nontraditional mortgage products. For example, if entities from which we purchase loans are required to change their origination guidelines thereby affecting the volume, diversity, and quality of loans available for purchase by us, or if purchasers of mortgage loans are required to make changes to the purchasing policies, then our loan volume, ability to sell mortgage loans and profitability, could be adversely affected.

Our interest-only loans may have a higher risk of default than our fully-amortizing loans.

For the year ended December 31, 2006, originations of interest-only loans totaled $1.4 billion, or 13%, of our total originations. These interest-only loans require the borrowers to make monthly payments only of accrued interest for the first 24, 36 or 120 months following origination. After such interest-only period, the borrower’s monthly payment is recalculated to cover both interest and principal so that the mortgage loan will amortize fully prior to its final payment date. The interest-only feature may reduce the likelihood of prepayment during the interest-only period due to the smaller monthly payments relative to a fully-amortizing mortgage loan. If the monthly payment increases, the related borrower may not be able to pay the increased amount and may default or may refinance the related mortgage loan to avoid the higher payment. Because no principal payments may be made on such mortgage loans for an extended period following origination, if the borrower ultimately defaults, the unpaid principal balance of the related loans would be greater than otherwise would be the case for a fully-amortizing loan. As a result, the likelihood that we would incur a loss on these loans will increase, especially in a declining real estate market.

Current loan performance data may not be indicative of future results.

When making capital budgeting and other decisions, we use projections, estimates and assumptions based on our experience with mortgage loans. Actual results and the timing of certain events could differ materially in adverse ways from those projected, due to factors including changes in general economic conditions, interest rates, mortgage loan prepayment rates and in losses due to defaults on mortgage loans. These differences and fluctuations could rise to levels that may adversely affect our profitability and financial condition.

Changes in prepayment rates of mortgage loans could adversely affect the return that we are able to achieve on our assets.

The value of our assets may be affected by prepayment rates on our residential mortgage loans and other floating rate assets. Prepayment rates are influenced by changes in current interest rates and a variety of economic, geographic and other factors beyond our control, and consequently, such prepayment rates cannot be predicted with certainty. In periods of declining mortgage interest rates, prepayments on loans generally increase. If general interest rates decline as well, the proceeds of such prepayments received during such periods are likely to be reinvested by us in assets yielding less than the yields on the assets that were prepaid. In addition, the market value of floating rate assets may, because of the risk of prepayment, benefit less than fixed rate assets from declining interest rates. Conversely, in periods of rising interest rates, prepayments on loans generally decrease, in which case we would not have the prepayment proceeds available to invest in assets with higher yields. Under certain interest rate and prepayment scenarios we may fail to recoup fully our cost of acquisition of certain investments. As a result of all of these factors, changes in prepayment rates could adversely affect our return on our assets.

Geographic concentration of mortgage loans we originate or purchase increases our exposure to risks in those areas.

Over-concentration of loans we originate or purchase in any one geographic area increases our exposure to the economic and natural hazard risks associated with that area. Declines in the residential real estate markets in which we are concentrated may reduce the values of the properties collateralizing our mortgages which in turn may increase the risk of delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy, or losses from those loans. To the extent that borrowers in a geographic area in which we have made a significant number of loans become delinquent or otherwise default on such loans, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

To the extent that we have a large number of loans in an area hit by a natural disaster, we may suffer losses.

Standard homeowner insurance policies generally do not provide coverage for natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods. Furthermore, nonconforming borrowers are not likely to have special hazard insurance. To the extent that borrowers do not have insurance coverage for natural disasters, they may not be able to repair the property or may stop paying their mortgages if the property is damaged. A natural disaster that results in a significant number of delinquencies could cause increased foreclosures and decrease our ability to recover losses on properties affected by such disasters, and that in turn could harm our financial condition and results of operations.

A prolonged economic slowdown or a decline in the real estate market could harm our results of operations.

A substantial portion of our mortgage assets consist of single-family mortgage loans or mortgage securities evidencing interests in single-family mortgage loans. Because we make a substantial number of loans to credit-impaired borrowers, the actual rates of delinquencies, foreclosures and losses on these loans tend to be higher during economic slowdowns. Recently, we have experienced an increase in delinquencies and foreclosures. Any sustained period of increased delinquencies or defaults or any sharp increase in the number of delinquencies and defaults could harm our ability to sell loans, the prices we receive for our loans, the values of our mortgage loans held for sale, our ability to finance loan originations and our residual interests in securitizations, which could harm our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, any material decline in real estate values would weaken our collateral loan-to-value ratios and increase the possibility of loss if a borrower defaults. In such event, we will be subject to the risk of loss on such mortgage asset arising from borrower defaults to the extent not covered by third-party credit enhancement.

Risks Related to the Legal and Regulatory Environment in Which We Operate

Various legal proceedings could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

In the course of our business, we are subject to various legal proceedings and claims. See “Item 3 – Legal Proceedings.” The resolution of these legal matters or other legal matters could result in a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

We are subject to the risk that provisions of our loan agreements may be unenforceable.

Our rights and obligations with respect to our loans are governed by written loan agreements and related documentation. It is possible that a court could determine that one or more provisions of a loan agreement are unenforceable, such as a loan prepayment prohibition or the provisions governing our security interest in the underlying collateral. If this were to happen with respect to a material asset or group of assets, we could be required to repurchase these loans and may not be able to sell or liquidate the loans, which could negatively affect our liquidity and financial condition.

We are exposed to the risk of environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title.

In the course of our business, we occasionally foreclose and take title to residential properties and as a result could become subject to environmental liabilities associated with these properties. We may be held liable for property damage, personal injury, investigation, and cleanup costs incurred in connection with environmental contamination. These costs could be substantial. If we ever become subject to significant environmental liabilities, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Regulation as an investment company could harm our business; efforts to avoid regulation as an investment company could limit our operations.

If we were required to comply with the Investment Company Act, we would be prevented from conducting our business as described in this document by, among other things, substantially limiting our ability to use leverage. The Investment Company Act does not regulate entities that are primarily engaged, directly or indirectly, in a business “other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities,” or that are primarily engaged in the business of “purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” Under the Commission’s current interpretation, in order to qualify for the latter exemption we must maintain at least 55% of our assets directly in “qualifying real estate interests” and at least an additional 25% of our assets in other real estate-related assets or additional qualifying real estate interests. Mortgage-backed securities that do not represent all the certificates issued with respect to an underlying pool of mortgages may be treated as securities separate from the underlying mortgage loans and thus may not qualify as a qualifying real estate interest for the purposes of the 55% requirement. Therefore, to insure that we continue to qualify for the exemption, we may be required to adopt less efficient methods of financing certain of our mortgage assets, we may be required to sell certain mortgage securities at disadvantageous terms, and we may be precluded from acquiring certain types of higher yielding mortgage assets. If we fail to qualify for an applicable exemption from the Investment Company Act, we could not operate our business efficiently under the regulatory scheme imposed by the Investment Company Act. Accordingly, we could be required to restructure our activities which could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our failure to comply with federal, state or local regulation of, or licensing requirements with respect to, mortgage lending, loan servicing, broker compensation programs, or other aspects of our business could harm our operations and profitability.

As a mortgage lender, loan servicer and broker, we are subject to an extensive body of both state and federal law. The volume of new or modified laws and regulations has increased in recent years and, in addition, some individual municipalities and cities have begun to enact laws that restrict loan origination and servicing activities. As a result, it may be more difficult to comprehensively identify and accurately interpret all of these laws and regulations, to properly program our technology systems and to effectively train our personnel with respect to all of these laws and regulations, thereby potentially increasing our exposure to the risks of noncompliance with these laws and regulations. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations can lead to civil and criminal liability; loss of licensure; damage to our reputation in the industry; inability to sell or securitize our loans; demands for indemnification or loan repurchases from purchasers of our loans; fines and penalties and litigation, including class action lawsuits; or administrative enforcement actions. Any of these results could harm our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

New legislation could restrict our ability to make, finance and sell mortgage loans, could increase our compliance and origination costs, and could expose us to lawsuits and compliance actions, any of which could harm our earnings and business prospects.

The regulatory environments in which we operate have an impact on the activities in which we may engage, how these activities may be carried out, and the profitability of these activities. Therefore, changes to laws, regulations or regulatory policies can affect whether and to what extent we are able to operate profitably.

Several states, cities or other government entities are considering or have passed laws, regulations or ordinances aimed at curbing lending practices perceived as predatory. The federal government is also considering legislative and regulatory proposals in this regard. In general, these proposals involve lowering the existing thresholds for defining a “high-cost” loan and establish enhanced protections and remedies for borrowers who receive such loans. For example, certain of these new or proposed laws and regulations prohibit inclusion of some provisions in mortgage loans that have mortgage rates or origination costs in excess of prescribed levels, and require that borrowers be given certain disclosures or obtain advice, at the expense of the lender, prior to the consummation of such mortgage loans. Passage of these laws and rules could reduce our loan origination and purchase volumes and could increase our costs. The institutions that provide short-term financing to us generally refuse to finance any loan labeled as a “high cost” loan under any local, state or federal law or regulation. In addition, many whole loan buyers may elect not to purchase these loans, and rating agencies likewise may refuse to rate securities backed by such loans. Accordingly, these laws and rules could severely restrict short-term financing and the secondary market for a significant portion of our loan production. This would effectively preclude us from continuing to originate loans either in jurisdictions unacceptable to our lenders or the rating agencies or that exceed the newly defined thresholds, which in either case could harm our results of operations and business prospects.

We cannot provide any assurance that these proposed laws, rules and regulations, or other similar laws, rules or regulations, will not be adopted in the future. Adoption of these laws and regulations could have a material adverse impact on our business by substantially increasing the costs of compliance with a variety of inconsistent federal, state and local rules, or by restricting our ability to charge rates and fees adequate to compensate us for the risk associated with certain loans. Compliance with some of these restrictions requires lenders to make subjective judgments, such as whether a loan will provide a “net tangible benefit” to the borrower. These restrictions impact the way in which a loan is underwritten and expose a lender to risks of litigation and regulatory sanction regardless of the care with which a loan is underwritten. Our failure to comply with these laws could subject us to monetary penalties and could result in the borrowers rescinding the loans, whether held by us or subsequent holders. The remedies for violations of these laws are not based solely on actual harm to the consumer and can result in damages and penalties that could extend not only to us, but to our secured warehouse lenders, institutional loan purchasers, securitization trusts that hold our loans and other assignees, regardless of whether such assignee knew of or participated in the violation, which, in turn, could have an adverse affect on the availability of financing to us and our access to securitization and other secondary markets.

Similarly, recently enacted and proposed local, state and federal privacy laws and laws prohibiting or limiting marketing by telephone, facsimile, email and the Internet may limit our ability to market and our ability to access potential loan applicants.

We are subject to significant legal and reputational risks and expenses under federal and state laws concerning privacy, use, and security of customer information.

The scope of business activity affected by “privacy” concerns is likely to expand and will affect our non-prime mortgage loan origination business. The federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial reform legislation imposes significant privacy obligations on us in connection with the collection, use and security of financial and other non-public information provided to us by applicants and borrowers. We adopted a privacy policy and adopted controls and procedures to comply with the law after it took effect on July 1, 2001. Privacy rules also require us to protect the security and integrity of the customer information we use and hold. Although we have systems and procedures designed to help us with these privacy requirements, we cannot assure you that more restrictive laws and regulations will not be adopted in the future, or that governmental bodies will not interpret existing laws or regulations in a more restrictive manner, making compliance more difficult or expensive. These requirements also increase the risk that we may be subject to liability for non-compliance.

A number of states are considering privacy amendments that may be more demanding than federal law, and California recently has enacted two statutes — the California Financial Information Privacy Act (also know as SB-1) and the California Online Privacy Protection Act, both of which took effect on July 1, 2004. Under SB-1, a financial company must allow its customers to opt out of the sharing of their information with affiliates in separately regulated lines of business and must receive a customer opt-in before confidential customer data may be shared with unaffiliated companies (subject to certain exceptions). A federal court rejected the effort of three financial trade associations to prevent SB-1 from taking effect, and as of July 1, 2004, the California Department of Financial Institutions announced that it would require immediate compliance with SB-1. Under the new California Online Privacy Act, all operators of commercial websites and online services that allow interaction with California consumers (even if no transactions may be effected online) must post privacy policies meeting statutory requirements. The FTC, which administers the federal privacy rules for mortgage lenders, has determined that privacy laws in several states are not preempted by Gramm-Leach-Bliley, most recently new privacy laws enacted by Vermont and Illinois. In view of the public concern with privacy, we cannot assure you that additional rules that restrict or make more costly our activities and the activities of our vendors will not be adopted and will not restrict the marketing of our products and services to new customers.

Because laws and rules concerning the use and protection of customer information are continuing to develop at the federal and state levels, we expect to incur increased costs in our effort to be and remain in full compliance with these requirements. Nevertheless, despite our efforts, we will be subject to legal and reputational risks in connection with our collection and use of customer information, and we cannot assure you that we will not be subject to lawsuits or compliance actions under such state or federal privacy requirements. Furthermore, to the extent that a variety of inconsistent state privacy rules or requirements are enacted, our compliance costs could substantially increase.

New regulatory actions affecting the mortgage industry may increase our costs and decrease our mortgage acquisition.

In addition to changes to legal requirements contained in statutes, regulations, case law, and other sources of law, changes in the investigation or enforcement policies of federal and state regulatory agencies could impact the activities in which we may engage, how the activities may be carried out, and the profitability of those activities. Several state and federal agencies have initiated regulatory enforcement proceedings against mortgage companies for engaging in business practices that were not specifically or clearly proscribed by law, but which in the judgment of the regulatory agencies were unfair or deceptive to consumers. For example, state attorneys general and other state officials representing various states entered into a settlement agreement with a large subprime mortgage company.

The subject company agreed to pay a substantial amount in restitution to consumers and reimbursement to the states and also agreed to make changes to certain business practices, including the company’s underwriting criteria and pricing policies. Many of the practices and policies are not specifically prohibited by any federal or state laws but were alleged to be deceptive or unfair to consumers. The terms of this settlement agreement do not apply directly to us; however, federal and state regulatory agencies and private parties might nevertheless expect mortgage companies, including us, to make our business practices consistent with the provisions of the settlement agreement. If this happens, it could impact the activities in which we may engage, how we carry out those activities, our acquisition practices and our profitability. We might also be required to pay fines, make reimbursements, and make other payments to third parties for our business practices. Additionally, if an administrative enforcement proceeding were to result in us having to discontinue or alter certain business practices, then we might be placed at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis competitors who are not required to make comparable changes to their business practices.

Changes in Internal Revenue Service regulations regarding the timing of income recognition and/or deductions could materially adversely affect the amount of our dividends.

On September 30, 2004, the IRS released Announcement 2004-75, which describes rules that may be included in proposed IRS regulations regarding the timing of recognizing income and/or deductions attributable to interest-only securities. We believe the effect of these regulations, if adopted, may narrow the spread between book income and taxable income on the interest-only securities we hold and would thus reduce our taxable income during the initial periods that we hold such securities. A significant portion of our mortgage securities—available-for-sale consists of interest-only securities. If regulations are adopted by the IRS that reduces our taxable income in a particular year during which we are a REIT, our dividend paid to common shareholders may be reduced for that year because, so long as we remain a REIT, the amount of our dividend on common stock is entirely dependent upon our taxable income.

If we do not maintain our REIT status, we would be subject to tax as a regular corporation and would otherwise operate as a regular corporation. We conduct a substantial portion of our business through our taxable REIT subsidiaries, which creates additional compliance requirements.

We must comply with numerous complex tests to continue to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, including the requirement that we distribute 90% of taxable income to our shareholders and the requirement that no more than 5% of our annual gross income come from non-qualifying sources. So long as we remain a REIT, failure to comply with these requirements may subject us to penalty taxes and may put our REIT status at risk. In the event that we fail to maintain or elect to terminate our REIT status, we would be taxed at the corporate level and would not be required to pay out our taxable income in the form of dividends. For any year that we do not generate taxable income, we are not required to declare and maintain dividends to maintain our REIT status.

We conduct a substantial portion of our business through taxable REIT subsidiaries, such as NovaStar Mortgage. Despite our qualification as a REIT, our taxable REIT subsidiaries must pay federal income tax on their taxable income. Our income from, and investments in, our taxable REIT subsidiaries do not constitute permissible income or investments for some of the REIT qualification tests. We may be subject to a 100% penalty tax, or our taxable REIT subsidiaries may be denied deductions, to the extent that our dealings with our taxable REIT subsidiaries are deemed not to be arm’s length in nature.

Our cash balances and cash flows may become limited relative to our cash needs, which may ultimately affect our REIT status or solvency.

We use cash for originating mortgage loans, to meet minimum REIT dividend distribution requirements, and for other operating needs. Cash is also required to pay interest on our outstanding indebtedness and may be required to pay down indebtedness in the event that the market values of the assets collateralizing our debt decline, the terms of short-term debt become less attractive or for other reasons. If our income as calculated for tax purposes significantly exceeds our cash flows from operations, our minimum REIT dividend distribution requirements could exceed the amount of our available cash. In the event that our liquidity needs exceed our access to liquidity, we may need to sell assets at an inopportune time, thus adversely affecting our financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, in an adverse cash flow situation, our REIT status or our solvency could be threatened.

The tax imposed on REITs engaging in “prohibited transactions” will limit our ability to engage in transactions, including certain methods of securitizing loans, which would be treated as sales for federal income tax purposes.

A REIT’s net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property, other than foreclosure property but including any mortgage loans held in inventory primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to this tax if we were to sell a loan or securitize the loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of such inventory for federal income tax purposes. Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of loans other than through our taxable REIT subsidiaries and may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions even though such sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial for us. In addition, this prohibition may limit our ability to restructure our portfolio of mortgage loans from time to time even if we believe it would be in our best interest to do so.

Even if we qualify as a REIT, the income earned by our taxable REIT subsidiaries will be subject to federal income tax and we could be subject to an excise tax on non-arm’s-length transactions with our taxable REIT subsidiaries.

Our taxable REIT subsidiaries, including NovaStar Mortgage, expect to earn income from activities that are prohibited for REITs, and will owe income taxes on the taxable income from these activities. For example, we expect that NovaStar Mortgage will earn income from our loan origination and sales activities, as well as from other origination and servicing functions, which would generally not be qualifying income for purposes of the gross income tests applicable to REITs or might otherwise be subject to adverse tax liability if the income were generated by a REIT. Our taxable REIT subsidiaries are taxable as C corporations and are subject to federal, state and local income tax at the applicable corporate rates on their taxable income, notwithstanding our qualification as a REIT.

In the event that any transactions between us and any of our taxable REIT subsidiaries are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis, we could be subject to a 100% excise tax on certain amounts from such transactions. Any such tax could affect our overall profitability and the amounts of cash available for operations or to make distributions.

We may, at some point in the future, borrow funds from one or more of our corporate subsidiaries. The IRS may recharacterize the indebtedness as a dividend distribution to us by our subsidiary. Any such recharacterization may cause us to fail one or more of the REIT requirements.

We may be harmed by changes in tax laws applicable to REITs or the reduced 15% tax rate on certain corporate dividends may harm us.

Changes to the laws and regulations affecting us, including changes to securities laws and changes to the Code applicable to the taxation of REITs may harm our business. New legislation may be enacted into law or new interpretations, rulings or regulations could be adopted, any of which could harm us and our shareholders, potentially with retroactive effect.

Generally, dividends paid by REITs are not eligible for the 15% U.S. federal income tax rate on certain corporate dividends, with certain exceptions. The more favorable treatment of regular corporate dividends could cause domestic non-corporate investors to consider stocks of other corporations that pay dividends as more attractive relative to stocks of REITs.

We may be unable to comply with the requirements applicable to REITs or compliance with such requirements could harm our financial condition.

The requirements to qualify as a REIT under the Code are highly technical and complex. We routinely rely on legal opinions to support our tax positions. A technical or inadvertent failure to comply with the Code as a result of an incorrect interpretation of the Code or otherwise could jeopardize our REIT status. The determination that we qualify as a REIT requires an analysis of various factual matters and circumstances that may not be totally within our control. For example, to qualify as a REIT, at least 75% of our gross income must come from real estate sources and 95% of our gross income must come from real estate sources and certain other sources that are itemized in the REIT tax laws, mainly interest and dividends. We are subject to various limitations on our ownership of securities, including a limitation that the value of our investment in taxable REIT subsidiaries, including NovaStar Mortgage, cannot exceed 20% of our total assets at the end of any calendar quarter. In addition, at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of our assets must be qualifying real estate assets, government securities and cash and cash items. The need to comply with these asset ownership requirements may cause us to acquire other assets that are qualifying real estate assets for purposes of the REIT requirements (for example, interests in other mortgage loan portfolios or mortgage-related assets) but are not part of our overall business strategy and might not otherwise be the best investment alternative for us. Moreover, we may be unable to acquire sufficient qualifying REIT assets, due to our inability to obtain adequate financing or otherwise, in which case we may fail to qualify as a REIT or may incur a penalty tax at the REIT level.

Also, to qualify as a REIT, we must distribute to our shareholders with respect to each year at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and by excluding any net capital gain). After-tax earnings generated by our taxable REIT subsidiaries and not distributed to us are not subject to these distribution requirements and may be retained by such subsidiaries to provide for future growth, subject to the limitations imposed by REIT tax rules. To the extent that we satisfy the 90% distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our shareholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under federal tax laws. We expect in some years that we will be subject to the 4% excise tax. We could be required to borrow funds on a short-term basis even if conditions are not favorable for borrowing, or to sell loans from our portfolio potentially at disadvantageous prices, to meet the REIT distribution requirements and to avoid corporate income taxes. These alternatives could harm our financial condition and could reduce amounts available to originate mortgage loans.

If we fail to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT, our distributions will not be deductible by us, and we will be subject to federal income tax on our taxable income. This would substantially reduce our earnings and our cash available to make distributions. The resulting tax liability, in the event of our failure to qualify as a REIT, might cause us to borrow funds, liquidate some of our investments or take other steps that could negatively affect our operating results. Moreover, if our REIT status is terminated because of our failure to meet a technical REIT requirement or if we voluntarily revoke our election, we generally would be disqualified from electing treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year in which REIT status is lost.

We could lose our REIT status if more than 20% of the value of our total assets are represented by the securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries at the close of any calendar quarter.

To qualify as a REIT, not more than 20% of the value of our total assets may be represented by the securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries at the close of any calendar quarter, subject to a 30-day “cure” period following the close of the quarter and, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2005, subject to certain relief provisions even after the 30-day cure period. Our taxable REIT subsidiaries, including NovaStar Mortgage, conduct a substantial portion of our business activities, including a majority of our loan origination and servicing activities. If the IRS determines that the value of our investment in our taxable REIT subsidiaries was more than 20% of the value of our total assets at the close of any calendar quarter, we could lose our REIT status. In certain cases, we may need to borrow from third parties to acquire additional qualifying REIT assets or increase the amount and frequency of dividends from our taxable REIT subsidiaries in order to comply with the 20% of assets test.

Risks Related to Our Capital Stock

Investors in our common stock may experience losses, volatility and poor liquidity, and we may reduce or delay payment of our dividends in a variety of circumstances.

Our earnings, cash flow, taxable income, GAAP income, book value and dividends can be volatile and difficult to predict. Investors should not rely on past performance, predictions or management beliefs. Although we historically paid a regular common stock dividend, we may reduce or eliminate our dividend payments in the future for a variety of reasons. For example, to the extent that the historic difference between our taxable income and GAAP income is reduced or reversed due to changes in the tax laws, our operating results or otherwise, our dividend could be reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, if we failed, or chose not to satisfy the complex requirements necessary to maintain our REIT status, our dividend may be reduced or eliminated because we would not be required to pay out our taxable income in the form of dividends. We may not provide public warnings of such dividend reductions or eliminations prior to their occurrence. Fluctuations in our current and prospective earnings, cash flow and dividends, as well as many other factors such as perceptions, economic conditions, stock market conditions, and the like, can affect the price of our common stock. Investors may experience volatile returns and material losses. In addition, liquidity in the trading of our common stock may be insufficient to allow investors to sell their stock in a timely manner or at a reasonable price.

We may not pay common stock dividends to stockholders.

So long as we maintain our status as a REIT, REIT provisions of the Code generally require that we annually distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of all of our taxable income, exclusive of the application of any tax loss carry forwards that may be used to offset current period taxable income. These provisions restrict our ability to retain earnings and thereby generate capital from our operating activities. If in any year, however, we do not generate taxable income, we are not required to declare and pay common stock dividends to maintain our REIT status. In addition, we are currently evaluating and may decide at a future date to terminate our REIT status, which would cause us to be taxed at corporate levels and to significantly reduce or eliminate regular dividends.

Restrictions on ownership of capital stock may inhibit market activity and the resulting opportunity for holders of our capital stock to receive a premium for their securities.

In order for us to meet the requirements for qualification as a REIT, our charter generally prohibits, so long as we remain a REIT, any person from acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, (i) shares of our common stock in excess of 9.8% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of the aggregate outstanding shares of our common stock or (ii) shares of our capital stock in excess of 9.8% in value of the aggregate outstanding shares of our capital stock. These restrictions may inhibit market activity and the resulting opportunity for the holders of our capital stock to receive a premium for their stock that might otherwise exist in the absence of such restrictions.

The market price of our common stock and trading volume may be volatile, which could result in substantial losses for our shareholders.

The market price of our common stock can be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations. In addition, the trading volume in our common stock may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. Some of the factors that could negatively affect our share price or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our common stock include:

Our common stock may become illiquid if an active public trading market cannot be sustained, which could adversely affect the trading price and your ability to transfer our common stock.

Our common stock’s trading volume is relatively low compared to the securities of many other companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. If an active public trading market cannot be sustained, the trading price of our common stock could be adversely affected and your ability to transfer your shares of our common stock may be limited.

We may issue additional shares that may cause dilution and may depress the price of our common stock.

Our charter permits our board of directors, without shareholder approval, to:

In the future, we expect to access the capital markets from time to time by making additional offerings of securities, including debt instruments, preferred stock or common stock. Additional equity offerings by us may dilute your interest in us or reduce the market price of our common stock, or both. Our outstanding shares of preferred stock have, and any additional series of preferred stock may also have, a preference on distribution payments that could limit our ability to make a distribution to common shareholders. 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. Further, market conditions could require us to accept less favorable terms for the issuance of our securities in the future. Thus, our common shareholders will bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting their interest in us.

Other Risks Related to our Business

Intense competition in our industry may harm our financial condition.

Our loan origination business faces intense competition, primarily from consumer finance companies, conventional mortgage bankers, commercial banks, credit unions, thrift institutions, and other independent wholesale mortgage lenders, including internet-based lending companies and other mortgage REITs. Competitors with lower costs of capital have a competitive advantage over us. In addition, establishing a mortgage lending operation such as ours requires a relatively small commitment of capital and human resources, which permits new competitors to enter our markets quickly and to effectively compete with us. Furthermore, national banks, thrifts and their operating subsidiaries are generally exempt from complying with many of the state and local laws that affect our operations, such as the prohibition on prepayment penalties. Thus, they may be able to provide more competitive pricing and terms than we can offer. Any increase in the competition among lenders to originate nonconforming mortgage loans may result in either reduced income on mortgage loans compared to present levels, or revised underwriting standards permitting higher loan-to-value ratios on properties securing nonconforming mortgage loans, either of which could adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition or business prospects. In addition, the government-sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, may also expand their participation in the subprime mortgage industry. To the extent they materially expand their purchase of subprime loans, our ability to profitably originate and purchase mortgage loans may be adversely affected because their size and cost-of-funds advantage allows them to purchase loans with lower rates or fees than we are willing to offer.

If we are unable to maintain and expand our network of independent brokers, our loan origination business will decrease.

A significant majority of our originations of mortgage loans comes from independent brokers. For the year ended December 31, 2006, 86% of our loan originations were originated through our broker network. Our brokers are not contractually obligated to do business with us. Further, our competitors also have relationships with our brokers and actively compete with us in our efforts to expand our broker networks. Our failure to maintain existing relationships or expand our broker networks could significantly harm our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Our reported GAAP financial results differ from the taxable income results that drive our common stock dividend distributions, and our consolidated balance sheet, income statement, and statement of cash flows as reported for GAAP purposes may be difficult to interpret.

We manage our business based on long-term opportunities to earn cash flows. Our common stock dividend distributions are driven by the REIT tax laws and our taxable income as calculated pursuant to the Code. Our reported results for GAAP purposes differ materially, however, from both our cash flows and our taxable income. We transfer mortgage loans or mortgage securities into securitization trusts to obtain long-term non-recourse funding for these assets. When we surrender control over the transferred mortgage loans or mortgage securities, the transaction is accounted for as a sale. When we retain control over the transferred mortgage loans or mortgage securities, the transaction is accounted for as a secured borrowing. These securitization transactions do not differ materially in their structure or cash flow generation characteristics, yet under GAAP accounting these transactions are recorded differently. In a securitization transaction accounted for as a sale, we record a gain or loss on the assets transferred in our income statement and we record the retained interests at fair value on our balance sheet. In a securitization transaction accounted for as a secured borrowing, we consolidate all the assets and liabilities of the trust on our financial statements (and thus do not show the retained interest we own as an asset). As a result of this and other accounting issues, shareholders and analysts must undertake a complex analysis to understand our economic cash flows, actual financial leverage, and dividend distribution requirements. This complexity may cause trading in our stock to be relatively illiquid or may lead observers to misinterpret our results.

Market values for our mortgage assets and hedges can be volatile. For GAAP purposes, we mark-to-market our non-hedging derivative instruments through our GAAP consolidated income statement and we mark-to-market our mortgage securities—available-for-sale through our GAAP consolidated balance sheet through other comprehensive income unless the mortgage securities are in an unrealized loss position which has been deemed as an other-than-temporary impairment. An other-than-temporary impairment is recorded through the income statement in the period incurred. Additionally, we do not mark-to-market our loans held for sale as they are carried at lower of cost or market, as such, any change in market value would not be recorded through our income statement until the related loans are sold. If we sell an asset that has not been marked-to-market through our income statement at a reduced market price relative to its basis, our reported earnings will be reduced. A decrease in market value of our mortgage assets may or may not result in deterioration in future cash flows. As a result, changes in our GAAP consolidated income statement and balance sheet due to market value adjustments should be interpreted with care.

If we attempt to make any acquisitions, we will incur a variety of costs and may never realize the anticipated benefits.

In the past we have acquired businesses that we believe are a strategic fit with our business and expect to pursue additional acquisition opportunities in the future. The process of negotiating the acquisition and integrating an acquired business may result in operating difficulties and expenditures and may require significant management attention that would otherwise be available for ongoing development of our business. Moreover, we may never realize the anticipated benefits of any acquisitions. Future acquisitions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities and/or amortization expenses related to goodwill and other intangible assets, which could harm our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

The inability to attract and retain qualified employees could significantly harm our business.

We depend on the diligence, skill and experience of our top executives, including our chief executive officer, our president and chief operating officer, and our chief investment officer. To the extent that one or more of our top executives are no longer employed by us, our operations and business prospects may be adversely affected. We also depend on our employees who structure our securitizations and who manage our portfolio of mortgage securities. To the extent that we lose the services of these employees, our ability to manage our portfolio business and our profitability will be adversely affected. Further, we rely on our wholesale account executives and retail loan officers to attract borrowers by, among other things, developing relationships with financial institutions, other mortgage companies and brokers, real estate agents, borrowers and others. The market for skilled account executives and loan officers is highly competitive and historically has experienced a high rate of turnover. Competition for qualified account executives and loan officers may lead to increased hiring and retention costs. If we are unable to attract or retain a sufficient number of skilled account executives at manageable costs, we will be unable to continue to originate quality mortgage loans that we are able to sell for a profit, which would harm our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

The success and growth of our business will depend upon our ability to adapt to and implement technological changes.

Our mortgage loan origination business is currently dependent upon our ability to effectively interface with our brokers, borrowers and other third parties and to efficiently process loan applications and closings. The origination process is becoming more dependent upon technological advancement, such as the ability to process applications over the Internet, accept electronic signatures and provide process status updates instantly and other customer-expected conveniences that are cost-efficient to our process. Becoming proficient with new technology will require significant financial and personnel resources. If we become reliant on any particular technology or technological solution, we may be harmed to the extent that such technology or technological solution (i) becomes non-compliant with existing industry standards, (ii) fails to meet or exceed the capabilities of our competitors’ equivalent technologies or technological solutions, (iii) becomes increasingly expensive to service, retain and update, or (iv) becomes subject to third-party claims of copyright or patent infringement. Any failure to acquire technologies or technological solutions when necessary could limit our ability to remain competitive in our industry and could also limit our ability to increase the cost-efficiencies of our operating model, which would harm our results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

Our business could be adversely affected if we experienced an interruption in or breach of our communication or information systems or if we were unable to safeguard the security and privacy of the personal financial information we receive.

We rely heavily upon communications and information systems to conduct our business. Any material interruption, or breach in security, of our communication or information systems or the third-party systems on which we rely could cause underwriting or other delays and could result in fewer loan applications being received, slower processing of applications and reduced efficiency in loan servicing. Additionally, in connection with our loan file due diligence reviews, we have access to the personal financial information of the borrowers which is highly sensitive and confidential, and subject to significant federal and state regulation. If a third party were to misappropriate this information or if we inadvertently disclosed this information, we potentially could be subject to both private and public legal actions. Our policies and safeguards may not be sufficient to prevent the misappropriation or inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, may become noncompliant with existing federal or state laws or regulations governing privacy, or with those laws or regulations that may be adopted in the future.

We may enter into certain transactions at the REIT in the future that incur excess inclusion income that will increase the tax liability of our shareholders.

When we incur excess inclusion income at the REIT, it will be allocated among our shareholders. A shareholder’s share of excess inclusion income (i) would not be allowed to be offset by any net operating losses otherwise available to the shareholder, (ii) would be subject to tax as unrelated business taxable income in the hands of most types of shareholders that are otherwise generally exempt from federal income tax, and (iii) would result in the application of U.S. federal income tax withholding at the maximum rate (i.e., 30%), without reduction for any otherwise applicable income tax treaty, to the extent allocable to most types of foreign shareholders. How such income is to be reported to shareholders is not clear under current law. Tax-exempt investors, foreign investors, and taxpayers with net operating losses should carefully consider the tax consequences of having excess inclusion income allocated to them and are urged to consult their tax advisors.

Excess inclusion income would be generated if we issue debt obligations with two or more maturities and the terms of the payments on these obligations bear a relationship to the payments that we received on our mortgage loans or mortgage-backed securities securing those debt obligations. The structure of this type of CMO securitization generally gives rise to excess inclusion income. It is reasonably likely that we will structure some future CMO securitizations in this manner. Excess inclusion income could also result if we were to hold a residual interest in a REMIC. The amounts of excess inclusion income in any given year from these transactions could be significant.

Some provisions of our charter, bylaws and Maryland law may deter takeover attempts, which may limit the opportunity of our shareholders to sell their common stock at favorable prices.

Certain provisions of our charter, bylaws and Maryland law could discourage, delay or prevent transactions that involve an actual or threatened change in control, and may make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so may be beneficial to our shareholders by providing them with the opportunity to sell their shares possibly at a premium over the then market price. For example, our board of directors is divided into three classes with three year staggered terms of office. This makes it more difficult for a third party to gain control of our board because a majority of directors cannot be elected at a single meeting. Further, under our charter, generally a director may only be removed for cause and only by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least a majority of all classes of shares entitled to vote in the election for directors together as a single class. Our bylaws make it difficult for any person other than management to introduce business at a duly called meeting requiring such other person to follow certain advance notice procedures. Finally, Maryland law provides protection for Maryland corporations against unsolicited takeover situations. These provisions, as well as others, could discourage potential acquisition proposals, or delay or prevent a change in control and prevent changes in our management, even if such actions would be in the best interests of our shareholders.

Strategies undertaken to comply with REIT requirements under the Code may create volatility in future reported GAAP earnings.

Certain of the residual securities that historically have been held at the REIT generate interest income based on cash flows received from excess interest spread, prepayment penalties and derivatives (i.e., interest rate swap and cap contracts). The cash flows received from the derivatives do not represent qualified income for the REIT income tests requirements of the Code. The Code limits the amount of income from derivative income together with any income not generated from qualified REIT assets to no more than 25% of our gross income. In addition, under the Code, we must limit our aggregate income from derivatives (that are non-qualified tax hedges) and from other non-qualifying sources to no more than 5% of our annual gross income. Because of the magnitude of the derivative income projected for 2006 it was highly likely that we would not satisfy the REIT income tests. In order to resolve this REIT qualification issue, we isolated cash flows received from certain residual securities and created a separate security (the “CT Bonds”). We then contributed the CT Bonds from the REIT to our taxable REIT subsidiary. This transaction may add volatility to future reported GAAP earnings because both the interest only residual bonds (“IO Bonds”) and CT Bonds will be evaluated separately for impairment. Historically, the CT Bonds have acted as an economic hedge for the IO Bonds that are retained at the REIT, thus mitigating the impairment risk to the IO Bonds in a rising interest rate environment. As a result of transferring the CT Bonds to the TRS, the IO and CT Bonds will be valued separately creating the risk of earnings volatility resulting from other-than-temporary impairment charges. For example, in a rising rate environment, the IO bond will generally decrease in value while the CT Bond will increase in value. If the decrease in value of the IO Bond is deemed to be other than temporary in nature, we would record an impairment charge through the income statement for such decrease. At the same time, any increase in value of the CT Bond would be recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income.

Item 1B.Unresolved Staff Comments

        None

Item 2.Properties

Our executive, administrative and loan servicing offices are located in Kansas City, Missouri, and consist of approximately 200,000 square feet of leased office space. The lease agreements on the premises expire in January 2011. The current annual rent for these offices is approximately $4.1$4.2 million.

We lease office space for our mortgage lending operations in Lake Forest, California; Independence, Ohio; Richfield, Ohio; Troy, Michigan;Michigan, Salt Lake City, Utah, Carmel, Indiana and Columbia, Maryland and Vienna, Virginia.Maryland. Currently, these offices consist of approximately 255,000316,444 square feet. The leases on the premises expire from January 2005December 2009 through May 2012,2013, and the current annual rent is approximately $4.1$5.5 million.

Item 3.Legal Proceedings

Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar class action lawsuits have been filed and consolidated into a single action in Unitedthe Untied States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Companyus and three of itsour executive officers as defendants and generally alleges that the defendants made public statements that were misleading for failing to disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters. The plaintiffs purport to have brought this consolidated action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company’sour common stock (and sellers of put options on the Company’sour common stock) during the period October 29, 2003 through April 8, 2004. The Company believesOn January 14, 2005, we filed a motion to dismiss this action, and on May 12, 2005, the court denied such motion. On February 8, 2007, the court certified the case as a class action, and on February 20, 2007, we filed a motion to reconsider with the court. We believe that these claims are without merit and intendscontinue to vigorously defend against them.

In the wake of the securities class action, the Company haswe have also been named as a nominal defendant in several derivative actions brought against certain of the Company’sour officers and directors in Missouri and Maryland. The complaints in these actions generally claim that the defendants are liable to the Companyus for failing to monitor corporate affairs so as to ensure compliance with applicable state licensing and regulatory requirements.

In July 2004, an employee of NHMIApril 2005, three putative class actions filed a class and collective action lawsuit against NHMI and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. (“NMI”)certain of its affiliates were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the California superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, NHMI and NMI removed the matter to the United States District courtCourt for the CentralSouthern District of California.Georgia entitledIn Re NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation. These cases contend that NHMI improperly shared settlement service fees with limited liability companies in which NHMI had an interest (the “LLCs”), in violation of the fee splitting and anti-referral provisions of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), and also allege certain violations of state law and civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs seek treble damages with respect to the RESPA claims, disgorgement of fees with respect to the state law claims as well as other damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. In addition, two other related class actions have been filed in state courts.Miller v. NovaStar Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in October 2004 in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois andJones et al. v. NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in December 2004 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. In theMiller case, plaintiffs allege a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and civil conspiracy and contend certain LLCs provided settlement services without the borrower’s knowledge. The plaintiff brought this classplaintiffs in the Miller case seek a disgorgement of fees, other damages, injunctive relief and collective actionattorney’s fees on behalf of herselfthe class of plaintiffs. In theJones case, the plaintiffs allege the LLCs violated the Maryland Mortgage Lender Law by acting as lenders and/or brokers in Maryland without proper licenses and all pastcontend this arrangement amounted to a civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs in theJones case seek a disgorgement of fees and present employees of NHMI and NMI who were employed since May 1, 2000 in the capacity generally described as Loan Officer. The plaintiff alleged that NHMI and NMI failed to pay her and the membersattorney’s fees. In January 2007, all of the class she purported to represent overtime premium and minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and California state laws for the period commencing May 1, 2000. In January 2005, the plaintiffplaintiffs and NHMI agreed upon a nationwide settlement in the nominal amount of $3.1 million on behalf of a class of all NHMI Loan Officers nationwide. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, covers all minimum wage and overtime claims going back to July 30, 2001, and includes the dismissal with prejudice of the claims against NMI.settlement. Since not all class members will elect to be part of the settlement, the Companywe estimated the probable obligation related to the settlement to be in a range of $1.3$3.9 million to $1.7$4.7 million. In accordance with SFAS No. 5,Accounting “Accounting for ContingenciesContingencies”, the Companywe recorded a charge to earnings of $1.3$3.9 million in 2004.December of 2006. This amount is included in “Accounts payable and other liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet and included in “Professional and outside services” on our consolidated statement of income.

In December 2005, a putative class action was filed against NMI in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington entitledPierce et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. Plaintiffs contend that NMI failed to disclose prior to closing that a broker payment would be made on their loans, which was an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiffs seek excess interest charged, and treble damages as provided in the Washington Consumer Protection Act and attorney’s fees. On October 31, 2006, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a Washington state class. NMI sought to appeal the grant of class certification; however, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request for interlocutory appeal so review of the class certification order must wait until after a final judgment is entered, if necessary. The case is set for trial on April 23, 2007. NMI believes that it has valid defenses to plaintiffs’ claims and it intends to vigorously defend against them.

In December 2005, a putative class action was filed against NHMI in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana entitledPearson v. NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. Plaintiff contends that NHMI violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) in connection with its use of pre-approved offers of credit. Plaintiff seeks (on his own behalf, as well as for others similarly situated) statutory damages, other nominal damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs. In January 2007, the named plaintiff and NHMI agreed to settle the lawsuit for a nominal amount.

In February, 2007, two putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The complaints name us and three of our executive officers as defendants and generally allege, among other things, that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding our business and financial results. The plaintiffs purport to have brought the actions on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock during the period May 4, 2006 through February 20, 2007. We believe that these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend against them.

In addition to those matters listed above, the Company iswe are currently a party to various other legal proceedings and claims. claims, including, but not limited to, breach of contract claims, class action or individual claims for violations of the RESPA, FLSA, federal and state laws prohibiting employment discrimination, federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination in lending and federal and state licensing and consumer protection laws.

While management, including internal counsel, currently believes that the ultimate outcome of all these proceedings and claims individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’sour financial condition or results of operations, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on theour financial condition and results of operations for the period in which the ruling occurs.

In April 2004, the Company also received notice of an informal inquiry from the Securities & Exchange Commission requesting that it provide various documents relating to its business. The Company has been cooperating fully with the Commission’s inquiry.operations.

Item 4.Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

None

PART II

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

Market Price of and Dividends on the Registrant’s Common and Preferred Equity and Related Stockholder Matters. The Our common stock of NovaStar Financial, Inc (“NFI”) is traded on the NYSE under the symbol “NFI”. Our Series C Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol “NFI-PC”. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share of common stock on the NYSE and the cash dividends paid or payable per share of capitalcommon stock.