WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
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:
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
At June 30, 2009, the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was $2,177,976,715 based on the closing sale price on the New York Stock Exchange on that date.
The number of shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding on February 25, 2010 was 670,371,002.
The registrant intends to file a definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009. Portions of such proxy statement are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.
We make forward-looking statements in this annual report that are subject to risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements include information about possible or assumed future results of our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, plans and objectives. When we use the words ‘‘believe,’’ ‘‘expect,’’ ‘‘anticipate,’’ ‘‘estimate,’’ ‘‘plan,’’ ‘‘continue,’’ ‘‘intend,’’ ‘‘should,’’ ‘‘may,’’ ‘‘would,’’ ‘‘will’’ or similar expressions, we intend to identify forward-looking statements. Statements regarding the following subjects, among others, are forward-looking by their nature:
The forward-looking statements are based on our beliefs, assumptions and expectations of our future performance, taking into account all information currently available to us. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. These beliefs, assumptions and expectations can change as a result of many possible events or factors, not all of which are known to us. Some of these factors are described under the caption ‘‘Risk Factors’’ in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and any subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. If a change occurs, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations may vary materially from those expressed in our forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made. New risks and uncertainties arise from time to time, and it is impossible for us to predict those events or how they may affect us. Except as required by law, we are not obligated to, and do not intend to, update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
We are a specialty finance company that invests, either directly or indirectly through our subsidiaries, in residential mortgage-backed securities, or RMBS, residential mortgage loans, real estate-related securities and various other asset classes. We elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, for federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ending on December 31, 2007. Therefore, we generally will not be subject to federal income tax on our taxable income that is distributed to our stockholders. We were incorporated in Maryland in June 2007 and commenced operations in November 2007. We listed our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, in November 2007 and trade under the symbol “CIM”.
We are externally managed by Fixed Income Discount Advisory Company, which we refer to as our Manager or FIDAC. Our Manager is an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. Additionally, our Manager is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Annaly Capital Management, Inc., or Annaly, a New York Stock Exchange-listed REIT, which has a long track record of managing investments in U.S. government agency mortgage-backed securities.
Our objective is to provide attractive risk-adjusted returns to our investors over the long-term, primarily through dividends and secondarily through capital appreciation. We intend to achieve this objective by investing in a broad class of financial assets to construct an investment portfolio that is designed to achieve attractive risk-adjusted returns and that is structured to comply with the various federal income tax requirements for REIT status and to maintain our exclusion from regulation under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or 1940 Act.
We are externally managed and advised by FIDAC, a fixed-income management company, pursuant to a management agreement. All of our officers are employees of our Manager or one of its affiliates. We believe our relationship with our Manager enables us to leverage our Manager’s well-respected and established portfolio management resources for each of our targeted asset classes and its sophisticated infrastructure supporting those resources, including investment professionals focusing on residential mortgage loans, U.S. government agency residential mortgage-backed securities, or Agency RMBS, which are mortgage pass-through certificates, collateralized mortgage obligations, or CMOs, and other mortgage-backed securities representing interests in or obligations backed by pools of mortgage loans issued or guaranteed by the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac, and the Government National Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae, non-Agency RMBS and other asset-backed securities, or ABS. Additionally, we have benefitted and expect to continue to benefit from our Manager’s finance and administration functions, which address legal, compliance, investor relations and operational matters, including portfolio management, trade allocation and execution, securities valuation, risk management and information technologies in connection with the performance of its duties. Our Manager commenced active investment management operations in 1994. At December 31, 2009 our Manager was the adviser or sub-adviser for investment vehicles, including us and CreXus Investment Corp. (a NYSE-listed commercial mortgage REIT), with approximately $6.0 billion in net assets and $13.6 billion in gross assets.
Our Manager is responsible for administering our business activities and day-to-day operations. Pursuant to the terms of the management agreement, our Manager provides us with our management team, including our officers, along with appropriate support personnel. Our Manager is at all times subject to the supervision and oversight of our board of directors and has only such functions and authority as we delegate to it.
Our objective is to provide attractive risk-adjusted returns to our investors over the long-term, primarily through dividends and secondarily through capital appreciation. We intend to achieve this objective by investing in a diversified investment portfolio of RMBS, residential mortgage loans, real estate-related securities and various other asset classes, subject to maintaining our REIT status and exemption from registration under the 1940 Act. The RMBS, ABS, commercial mortgage backed securities, or CMBS, and collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, we purchase may include investment-grade and non-investment grade classes, including the BB-rated, B-rated and non-rated classes.
We rely on our Manager’s expertise in identifying assets within our target asset classes. Our Manager makes investment decisions based on various factors, including expected cash yield, relative value, risk-adjusted returns, current and projected credit fundamentals, current and projected macroeconomic considerations, current and projected supply and demand, credit and market risk concentration limits, liquidity, cost of financing and financing availability, as well as maintaining our REIT qualification and our exemption from registration under the 1940 Act.
Over time, we will modify our investment allocation strategy as market conditions change to seek to maximize the returns from our investment portfolio. We believe this strategy, combined with our Manager’s experience, will enable us to pay dividends and achieve capital appreciation throughout changing interest rate and credit cycles and provide attractive long-term returns to investors.
Our targeted asset classes and the principal investments we expect to make in each are as follows:
Since we commenced operations in November 2007, we have focused our investment activities on acquiring non-Agency RMBS and on purchasing residential mortgage loans that have been originated by select high-quality originators, including the retail lending operations of leading commercial banks. Our investment portfolio at December 31, 2009 was weighted toward non-Agency RMBS. At December 31, 2009, approximately 67.7% of our investment portfolio was non-Agency RMBS, 25.0% of our investment portfolio was Agency RMBS, and 7.3% of our investment portfolio was securitized residential mortgage loans. At December 31, 2008, approximately 52.5% of our investment portfolio was non-Agency RMBS, 13.7% of our investment portfolio was Agency RMBS, and 33.8% of our investment portfolio was securitized residential mortgage loans. We expect that over the near term, our investment portfolio will continue to be weighted toward RMBS, subject to maintaining our REIT qualification and our 1940 Act exemption.
In addition, we have engaged in and anticipate continuing to engage in transactions with residential mortgage lending operations of leading commercial banks and other high-quality originators in which we identify and re-underwrite residential mortgage loans owned by such entities, and rather than purchasing and securitizing such residential mortgage loans ourselves, we and the originator would structure the securitization and we would purchase the resulting mezzanine and subordinate non-Agency RMBS. We may also engage in similar transactions with non-Agency RMBS in which we acquire AAA-rated non-Agency RMBS and immediately re-securitize those securities. We may sell the resulting AAA-rated super senior RMBS and retain the AAA-rated mezzanine RMBS. Our investment decisions, however, will depend on prevailing market conditions and will change over time. As a result, we cannot predict the percentage of our assets that will be invested in each asset class or whether we will invest in other classes of investments. We may change our investment strategy and policies without a vote of our stockholders.
We have elected to be taxed as a REIT commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2007 and operate our business to be exempt from registration under the 1940 Act, and therefore we are required to invest a substantial majority of our assets in loans secured by mortgages on real estate and real estate-related assets. Subject to maintaining our REIT qualification and our 1940 Act exemption, we do not have any limitations on the amounts we may invest in any of our targeted asset classes.
The following briefly discusses the principal types of investments that we have made and expect to make:
We have invested in and intend to continue to invest in RMBS which are typically pass-through certificates created by the securitization of a pool of mortgage loans that are collateralized by residential real estate properties.
The securitization process is governed by one or more of the rating agencies, including Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s, which determine the respective bond class sizes, generally based on a sequential payment structure. Bonds that are rated from AAA to BBB by the rating agencies are considered “investment grade.” Bond classes that are subordinate to the BBB class are considered “below-investment grade” or “non-investment grade.” The respective bond class sizes are determined based on the review of the underlying collateral by the rating agencies. The payments received from the underlying loans are used to make the payments on the RMBS. Based on the sequential payment priority, the risk of nonpayment for the investment grade RMBS is lower than the risk of nonpayment for the non-investment grade bonds. Accordingly, the investment grade class is typically sold at a lower yield compared to the non-investment grade classes which are sold at higher yields.
We invest in investment grade and non-investment grade RMBS. We evaluate the credit characteristics of these types of securities, including, but not limited to, loan balance distribution, geographic concentration, property type, occupancy, periodic and lifetime cap, weighted-average loan-to-value and weighted-average FICO score. Qualifying securities are then analyzed using base line expectations of expected prepayments and losses from given sectors, issuers and the current state of the fixed-income market. Losses and prepayments are stressed simultaneously based on a credit risk-based model. Securities in this portfolio are monitored for variance from expected prepayments, severities, losses and cash flow. The due diligence process is particularly important and costly with respect to newly formed originators or issuers because there may be little or no information publicly available about these entities and investments.
We may invest in net interest margin securities, or NIMs, which are notes that are payable from and secured by excess cash flow that is generated by RMBS or home equity line of credit-backed securities, or HELOCs, after paying the debt service, expenses and fees on such securities. The excess cash flow represents all or a portion of a residual that is generally retained by the originator of the RMBS or HELOCs. The residual is illiquid, thus the originator will monetize the position by securitizing the residual and issuing a NIM, usually in the form of a note that is backed by the excess cash flow generated in the underlying securitization.
We may invest in mortgage pass-through certificates issued or guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. We refer to these U.S. government agencies as Agencies, and to the mortgage pass-through certificates they issue or guarantee as Agency Mortgage Pass-through Certificates. More specifically, Agency Mortgage Pass-through Certificates are securities representing interests in “pools” of mortgage loans secured by residential real property where payments of both interest and principal, plus pre-paid principal, on the securities are made monthly to holders of the security, in effect “passing through” monthly payments made by the individual borrowers on the mortgage loans that underlie the securities, net of fees paid to the issuer/guarantor and servicers of the securities. We may also invest in CMOs issued by the Agencies. CMOs consist of multiple classes of securities, with each class bearing different stated maturity dates. Monthly payments of principal, including prepayments, are first returned to investors holding the shortest maturity class; investors holding the longer maturity classes receive principal only after the first class has been retired. We refer to these types of securities as Agency CMOs, and we refer to Agency Mortgage Pass-through Certificates and Agency CMOs as Agency RMBS.
Agency RMBS are collateralized by either fixed-rate mortgage loans, or FRMs, adjustable-rate mortgage loans, or ARMs, or hybrid ARMs. Hybrid ARMs are mortgage loans that have interest rates that are fixed for an initial period (typically three, five, seven or ten years) and thereafter reset at regular intervals subject to interest rate caps. Our allocation between securities collateralized by FRMs, ARMs or hybrid ARMs will depend on various factors including, but not limited to, relative value, expected future prepayment trends, supply and demand, costs of financing, costs of hedging, expected future interest rate volatility and the overall shape of the U.S. Treasury and interest rate swap yield curves. We take these factors into account when we make these types of investments.
We anticipate engaging in transactions with residential mortgage lending operations of leading commercial banks and other high-quality originators in which we identify and re-underwrite residential mortgage loans owned by such entities, and rather than purchasing and securitizing such residential mortgage loans ourselves, we and the originator would structure the securitization and we would purchase the resulting mezzanine and subordinate non-Agency RMBS. We may also engage in similar transactions with non-Agency RMBS in which we would acquire AAA-rated non-Agency RMBS and immediately re-securitize those securities. We may sell the resulting AAA-rated super senior RMBS and retain the AAA-rated mezzanine RMBS.
We have invested and intend to continue to invest in residential mortgage loans (mortgage loans secured by residential real property) primarily through direct purchases from selected high-quality originators. We intend to enter into additional mortgage loan purchase agreements with a number of primary mortgage loan originators, including mortgage bankers, commercial banks, savings and loan associations, home builders, credit unions and mortgage conduits. We may also purchase mortgage loans on the secondary market. We expect these loans to be secured primarily by residential properties in the United States.
We invest primarily in residential mortgage loans underwritten to our specifications. The originators perform the credit review of the borrowers, the appraisal of the properties securing the loan, and maintain other quality control procedures. We generally consider the purchase of loans when the originators have verified the borrowers’ income and assets, verified their credit history and obtained appraisals of the properties. We or a third party perform an independent underwriting review of the processing, underwriting and loan closing methodologies that the originators used in qualifying a borrower for a loan. Depending on the size of the loans, we may not review all of the loans in a pool, but rather select loans for underwriting review based upon specific risk-based criteria such as property location, loan size, effective loan-to-value ratio, borrower’s credit score and other criteria we believe to be important indicators of credit risk. Additionally, before the purchase of loans, we obtain representations and warranties from each originator stating that each loan is underwritten to our requirements or, in the event underwriting exceptions have been made, we are informed so that we may evaluate whether to accept or reject the loans. An originator who breaches these representations and warranties in making a loan that we purchase may be obligated to repurchase the loan from us. As added security, we use the services of a third-party document custodian to insure the quality and accuracy of all individual mortgage loan closing documents and to hold the documents in safekeeping. As a result, all of the original loan collateral documents that are signed by the borrower, other than the original credit verification documents, are examined, verified and held by the third-party document custodian.
We currently do not intend to originate mortgage loans or provide other types of financing to the owners of real estate. We currently do not intend to establish a loan servicing platform, but expect to retain highly-rated servicers to service our mortgage loan portfolio. We purchase certain residential mortgage loans on a servicing-retained basis. In the future, however, we may decide to originate mortgage loans or other types of financing, and we may elect to service mortgage loans and other types of assets.
We expect that all servicers servicing our loans will be highly rated by the rating agencies. We also conduct a due diligence review of each servicer before executing a servicing agreement. Servicing procedures will typically follow Fannie Mae guidelines but will be specified in each servicing agreement. All servicing agreements will meet standards for inclusion in highly rated mortgage-backed or asset-backed securitizations. We have entered into a master servicing agreement with Wells Fargo, N.A. to assist us with management, servicing oversight, and other administrative duties associated with managing our mortgage loans.
We expect that the loans we acquire will be first lien, single-family residential traditional fixed-rate, adjustable-rate and hybrid adjustable-rate loans with original terms to maturity of not more than 40 years and are either fully amortizing or are interest-only for up to ten years, and fully amortizing thereafter. Fixed-rate mortgage loans bear an interest rate that is fixed for the life of the loan. All adjustable-rate and hybrid adjustable-rate residential mortgage loans will bear an interest rate tied to an interest rate index. Most loans have periodic and lifetime constraints on how much the loan interest rate can change on any predetermined interest rate reset date. The interest rate on each adjustable-rate mortgage loan resets monthly, semi-annually or annually and generally adjusts to a margin over a U.S. Treasury index or the LIBOR index. Hybrid adjustable-rate loans have a fixed rate for an initial period, generally three to ten years, and then convert to adjustable-rate loans for their remaining term to maturity.
We acquire residential mortgage loans for our portfolio with the intention of either securitizing them and retaining them in our portfolio as securitized mortgage loans, or holding them in our residential mortgage loan portfolio. To facilitate the securitization or financing of our loans, we expect to generally create subordinate certificates, which provide a specified amount of credit enhancement. We expect to issue securities through securities underwriters and either retain these securities or finance them in the repurchase agreement market. There is no limit on the amount we may retain of these below-investment-grade subordinate certificates. Until we securitize our residential mortgage loans, we expect to finance our residential mortgage loan portfolio through the use of warehouse facilities and repurchase agreements.
We may invest in securities issued in various CDO offerings to gain exposure to bank loans, corporate bonds, ABS, mortgages, RMBS and CMBS and other instruments. To avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest with our Manager, an investment in any such security structured or managed by our Manager will be approved by a majority of our independent directors. To the extent such securities are treated as debt of the CDO issuer for federal income tax purposes, we will hold the securities directly, subject to the requirements of our continued qualification as a REIT. To the extent the securities represent equity interests in a CDO issuer for federal income tax purposes, we may be required to hold such securities through a taxable REIT subsidiary, or TRS, which would cause the income recognized with respect to such securities to be subject to federal (and applicable state and local) corporate income tax. See “Risk Factors – Tax Risks.” We could fail to qualify as a REIT or we could become subject to a penalty tax if the income we recognize from certain investments that are treated or could be treated as equity interests in a foreign corporation exceed 5% of our gross income in a taxable year.
We may invest in CMBS, which are secured by, or evidence ownership interests in, a single commercial mortgage loan or a pool of mortgage loans secured by commercial properties. These securities may be senior, subordinated, investment grade or non-investment grade. We intend to invest in CMBS that will yield current interest income and where we consider the return of principal to be likely. We intend to acquire CMBS from private originators of, or investors in, mortgage loans, including savings and loan associations, mortgage bankers, commercial banks, finance companies, investment banks and other entities.
In general, CDO issuers are special purpose vehicles that hold a portfolio of income-producing assets financed through the issuance of rated debt securities of different seniority and equity. The debt tranches are typically rated based on cash flow structure, portfolio quality, diversification and credit enhancement. The equity securities issued by the CDO vehicle are the “first loss” piece of the CDO vehicle’s capital structure, but they are also generally entitled to all residual amounts available for payment after the CDO vehicle’s senior obligations have been satisfied. Some CDO vehicles are “synthetic,” in which the credit risk to the collateral pool is transferred to the CDO vehicle by a credit derivative such as a credit default swap.
We also may invest in consumer ABS. These securities are generally securities for which the underlying collateral consists of assets such as home equity loans, credit card receivables and auto loans. We also expect to invest in non-consumer ABS. These securities are generally secured by loans to businesses and consist of assets such as equipment loans, truck loans and agricultural equipment loans. Issuers of consumer and non-consumer ABS generally are special purpose entities owned or sponsored by banks and finance companies, captive finance subsidiaries of non-financial corporations or specialized originators such as credit card lenders. We may purchase RMBS and ABS which are denominated in foreign currencies or are collateralized by non-U.S. assets.
We have adopted a set of investment guidelines that set out the asset classes, risk tolerance levels, diversification requirements and other criteria used to evaluate the merits of specific investments as well as the overall portfolio composition. Our Manager’s Investment Committee reviews our compliance with the investment guidelines periodically and our board of directors receives an investment report at each quarter-end in conjunction with its review of our quarterly results. Our board also reviews our investment portfolio and related compliance with our investment policies and procedures and investment guidelines at each regularly scheduled board of directors meeting.
Our board of directors and our Manager’s Investment Committee have adopted the following guidelines for our investments and borrowings:
These investment guidelines may be changed by a majority of our board of directors without the approval of our stockholders.
Our board of directors has also adopted a separate set of investment guidelines and procedures to govern our relationships with FIDAC. We have also adopted detailed compliance policies to govern our interaction with FIDAC, including when FIDAC is in receipt of material non-public information.
We use leverage to increase potential returns to our stockholders. We are not required to maintain any specific debt-to-equity ratio as we believe the appropriate leverage for the particular assets we are financing depends on the credit quality and risk of those assets. At December 31, 2009, our ratio of debt-to-equity was 1.1:1. For purposes of calculating this ratio, our equity is equal to the total stockholders’ equity on our consolidated statements of financial condition. Our debt consists of repurchase agreements and securitized debt. As part of our borrowing, we have entered into a RMBS repurchase agreement with Annaly, which owns approximately 6.7% of our outstanding shares of common stock. As of December 31, 2009, we had outstanding under this agreement $259.0 million which consists of approximately 13% of our total financing.
Subject to our maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we may use a number of sources to finance our investments, including the following:
Unlike typical securitization structures, the underlying assets may be sold, subject to certain limitations, without a corresponding pay-down of the CDO, provided the proceeds are reinvested in qualifying assets. As a result, CDOs enable the sponsor to actively manage, subject to certain limitations, the pool of assets. We believe CDO financing structures may be an appropriate financing vehicle for our target asset classes because they will enable us to obtain relatively low, long-term cost of funds and minimize the risk that we may have to refinance our liabilities before the maturities of our investments, while giving us the flexibility to manage credit risk and, subject to certain limitations, to take advantage of profit opportunities.
We may, from time to time, utilize derivative financial instruments to hedge all or a portion of the interest rate risk associated with our borrowings. Under the federal income tax laws applicable to REITs, we generally enter into certain transactions to hedge indebtedness that we incur, or plan to incur, to acquire or carry real estate assets, although our total gross income from such hedges and other non-qualifying sources must not exceed 25% of our gross income.
We engage in a variety of interest rate management techniques that seek to mitigate changes in interest rates or other potential influences on the values of our assets. The federal income tax rules applicable to REITs require us to implement certain of these techniques through a TRS that is fully subject to corporate income taxation. Our interest rate management techniques may include:
The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing us. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently deem immaterial, also may become important factors that affect us.
If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and stockholders may lose some or all of their investment.
Risks Associated With Recent Adverse Developments in the Mortgage Finance and Credit Markets
Difficult conditions in the financial markets and the economy generally have caused us and may continue to cause us market value losses related to our holdings, and we do not expect these conditions to improve in the near future.
Our results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the mortgage market, the financial markets and the economy generally. Recently, concerns over inflation, energy costs, geopolitical issues, the availability and cost of credit, the mortgage market and a declining real estate market have contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy and markets going forward. The mortgage market, including the market for prime and Alt-A loans, has been severely affected by changes in the lending landscape and there is no assurance that these conditions have stabilized or that they will not worsen. The severity of the liquidity limitation was largely unanticipated by the markets. For now (and for the foreseeable future), access to mortgages has been substantially limited. This has an impact on new demand for homes, which will compress the home ownership rates and weigh heavily on future home price performance. There is a strong correlation between home price growth rates and mortgage loan delinquencies. The market deterioration has caused us to expect increased losses related to our holdings and, during 2008, to sell assets at a loss. Continued market deterioration may once again force us to sell assets at a loss.
A substantial portion of our assets are classified for accounting purposes as “available-for-sale” and carried at fair value. Changes in the fair values of those assets are directly charged or credited to OCI. As a result, a decline in values may reduce the book value of our assets. Moreover, if the decline in value of an available-for-sale security is other than temporary, such decline will reduce earnings.
All of our repurchase agreements and interest rate swap agreements are subject to bilateral margin calls in the event that the collateral securing our obligations under those facilities exceeds or does not meet our collateralization requirements. For example, during 2008, due to the deterioration in the market value of our assets, we received and met margin calls under our repurchase agreements, which required us to obtain additional funding from third parties, including from Annaly, and taking other steps to increase our liquidity. Additionally, the disruptions during 2008 resulted in us not being in compliance with the net income covenant in one of our whole loan repurchase agreements and the liquidity covenants in our other whole loan repurchase agreement at a time during which we had no amounts outstanding under those facilities. We amended these covenants, and on July 29, 2008, we terminated those facilities to avoid paying non-usage fees. We can provide no assurances that such events will not occur again and at a time when we cannot find additional funding which may result in us having to dispose of assets at an inopportune time when prices are depressed.
Dramatic declines in the housing market, with falling home prices and increasing foreclosures and unemployment, have resulted in significant asset write-downs by financial institutions, which have caused many financial institutions to seek additional capital, to merge with other institutions and, in some cases, to fail. In addition, we rely on the availability of financing to acquire residential mortgage loans, real estate-related securities and real estate loans on a leveraged basis. Institutions from which we will seek to obtain financing may have owned or financed residential mortgage loans, real estate-related securities and real estate loans, which have declined in value and caused them to suffer losses as a result of the recent downturn in the residential mortgage market. Many lenders and institutional investors have reduced and, in some cases, ceased to provide funding to borrowers, including other financial institutions. If these conditions persist, these institutions may become insolvent or tighten their lending standards, which could make it more difficult for us to obtain financing on favorable terms or at all. Our profitability may be adversely affected if we are unable to obtain cost-effective financing for our investments.
Mortgage loan modification programs, future legislative action and changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for refinancing a mortgage may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, the assets in which we invest.
During the second half of 2008, in 2009, and so far in 2010, the U.S. government, through the Federal Housing Administration, or FHA, and the FDIC, implemented programs designed to provide homeowners with assistance in avoiding residential mortgage loan foreclosures including the Hope for Homeowners Act of 2008, which allows certain distressed borrowers to refinance their mortgages into FHA-insured loans and the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, which provides a detailed, uniform model for one-time modification of eligible residential mortgage loans. The programs may also involve, among other things, the modification of mortgage loans to reduce the principal amount of the loans or the rate of interest payable on the loans, or to extend the payment terms of the loans. Members of the U.S. Congress have indicated support for additional legislative relief for homeowners, including an amendment of the bankruptcy laws to permit the modification of mortgage loans in bankruptcy proceedings. These loan modification programs, including future legislative or regulatory actions and amendments to the bankruptcy laws, that result in the modification of outstanding mortgage loans, as well as changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for refinancing a mortgage may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, our non-Agency RMBS and Agency RMBS. Depending on whether or not we purchased an instrument at a premium or discount, the yield we receive may be positively or negatively impacted by any modification.
The U.S. Government's pressing for refinancing of certain loans may affect prepayment rates for mortgage loans in mortgage-backed securities.
In addition to the increased pressure upon residential mortgage loan investors and servicers to engage in loss mitigation activities, the U.S. Government is pressing for refinancing of certain loans, and this encouragement may affect prepayment rates for mortgage loans in mortgage-backed securities. In connection with government-related securities, in February 2009 President Obama unveiled the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, which, in part, calls upon Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loosen their eligibility criteria for the purchase of loans in order to provide access to low-cost refinancing for borrowers who are current on their mortgage payments but who cannot otherwise qualify to refinance at a lower market rate. The major change was to permit an increase in the loan-to-value, or LTV, ratio of a refinancing loan eligible for sale up to 105%. In July 2009, the FHFA authorized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to raise the present LTV ratio ceiling of 105% to 125%. The charters governing the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prohibit purchases of loans with loan to value ratios in excess of 80% unless the loans have mortgage insurance (or unless other types of credit enhancement are provided in accordance with the statutory requirements). The FHFA, which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, determined that new mortgage insurance will not be required on the refinancing if the applicable entity already owns the loan or guarantees the related mortgage-backed securities. Additionally, the Treasury reports that in some cases a new appraisal will not be necessary upon refinancing. The Treasury estimates that up to 5,000,000 homeowners with loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac may be eligible for this refinancing program, which is scheduled to terminate in June 2010.
The HERA authorized a voluntary FHA mortgage insurance program called HOPE for Homeowners, or H4H Program, designed to refinance certain delinquent borrowers into new FHA-insured loans. The H4H Program targets delinquent borrowers under conventional mortgage loans, as well as under government-insured or - -guaranteed mortgage loans, that were originated on or before January 1, 2008. Holders of existing mortgage loans being refinanced under the H4H Program must accept a write-down of principal and waive all prepayment fees. While the use of the program has been extremely limited to date, Congress continues to amend the program to encourage its use. The H4H Program is effective through September 30, 2011.
To the extent these and other economic stabilization or stimulus efforts are successful in increasing prepayment speeds for residential mortgage loans, such as those in mortgage-backed securities, that could potentially harm our income and operating results, particularly in connection with loans or mortgage-backed securities purchased at a premium or our interest-only securities.
The actions of the U.S. government, Federal Reserve and Treasury, including the establishment of the TALF and the PPIP, may adversely affect our business.
The TALF was first announced by the Treasury on November 25, 2008, and has been expanded in size and scope since its initial announcement. Under the TALF, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York makes non-recourse loans to borrowers to fund their purchase of eligible assets, currently certain asset backed securities but not RMBS. The nature of the eligible assets has been expanded several times. The Treasury has stated that through its expansion of the TALF, non-recourse loans will be made available to investors to certain fund purchases of legacy securitization assets. On March 23, 2009, the Treasury in conjunction with the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve, announced the PPIP. The PPIP aims to recreate a market for specific illiquid residential and commercial loans and securities through a number of joint public and private investment funds. The PPIP is designed to draw new private capital into the market for these securities and loans by providing government equity co-investment and attractive public financing.
It is not possible to predict how the TALF, the PPIP, or other recent U.S. Government actions will impact the financial markets, including current significant levels of volatility, or our current or future investments. To the extent the market does not respond favorably to these initiatives or they do not function as intended, our business may not receive any benefits from this legislation. In addition, the U.S. government, Federal Reserve, Treasury and other governmental and regulatory bodies have taken or are considering taking other actions to address the financial crisis. We cannot predict whether or when such actions may occur, and such actions could have a dramatic impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
There can be no assurance that the actions of the U.S. Government, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and other governmental and regulatory bodies for the purpose of stabilizing the financial markets, including the establishment of the TALF and the PPIP, or market response to those actions, will achieve the intended effect, that our business will benefit from these actions or that further government or market developments will not adversely impact us.
In response to the financial issues affecting the banking system and the financial markets and going concern threats to investment banks and other financial institutions, the U.S. Government, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and other governmental and regulatory bodies have taken action to attempt to stabilize the financial markets. Significant measures include the enactment of the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or the EESA, to, among other things, establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or the TARP; the enactment of the HERA, which established a new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the establishment of the TALF; and the establishment of the PPIP.
There can be no assurance that the EESA, HERA, TALF, PPIP or other recent U.S. Government actions will have a beneficial impact on the financial markets, including on current levels of volatility. To the extent the market does not respond favorably to these initiatives or these initiatives do not function as intended, our business may not receive the anticipated positive impact from the legislation. There can also be no assurance that we will be eligible to participate in any programs established by the U.S. Government such as the TALF or the PPIP or, if we are eligible, that we will be able to utilize them successfully or at all. In addition, because the programs are designed, in part, to provide liquidity to restart the market for certain of our targeted assets, the establishment of these programs may result in increased competition for attractive opportunities in our targeted assets. It is also possible that our competitors may utilize the programs which would provide them with attractive debt and equity capital funding from the U.S. Government. In addition, the U.S. Government, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and other governmental and regulatory bodies have taken or are considering taking other actions to address the financial crisis. We cannot predict whether or when such actions may occur, and such actions could have a dramatic impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
The conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related efforts, along with any changes in laws and regulations affecting the relationship between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the U.S. Government, may adversely affect our business.
Due to increased market concerns about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s ability to withstand future credit losses associated with securities held in their investment portfolios, and on which they provide guarantees, without the direct support of the U.S. Government, on July 30, 2008, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, or the HERA. Among other things, the HERA established the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, which has broad regulatory powers over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On September 6, 2008, the FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship and, together with the Treasury, established a program designed to boost investor confidence in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s debt and Agency RMBS. As the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FHFA controls and directs the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and may (1) take over the assets of and operate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with all the powers of the shareholders, the directors and the officers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and conduct all business of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (2) collect all obligations and money due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (3) perform all functions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are consistent with the conservator’s appointment; (4) preserve and conserve the assets and property of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and (5) contract for assistance in fulfilling any function, activity, action or duty of the conservator. A primary focus of this new legislation is to increase the availability of mortgage financing by allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue to grow their guarantee business without limit, while limiting net purchases of mortgage-backed securities to a modest amount through the end of 2009. It is currently planned for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce gradually their mortgage-backed securities portfolios beginning in 2010.
In addition to FHFA becoming the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Treasury and FHFA have entered into Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs) between the Treasury and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pursuant to which the Treasury will ensure that each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac maintains a positive net worth. On December 24, 2009, the U.S. Treasury amended the terms of the U.S. Treasury’s PSPAs with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to remove the $200 billion per institution limit established under the PSPAs until the end of 2012. The U.S. Treasury also amended the PSPAs with respect to the requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce their portfolios.
Although the Treasury has committed capital to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there can be no assurance that these actions will be adequate for their needs. If these actions are inadequate, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could continue to suffer losses and could fail to honor their guarantees and other obligations. The future roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be significantly reduced and the nature of their guarantees could be considerably diminished. Any changes to the nature of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could redefine what constitutes Agency RMBS and could have broad adverse market implications and severe adverse consequences to our business.
Such consequences to us may include an inability to use Agency RMBS as collateral for our financings under our repurchase agreements since any decline in their value, or perceived market uncertainty about their value, would make it more difficult for us to obtain financing on acceptable terms or at all, or to maintain our compliance with the terms of any financing transactions, or to maintain our exemption under the 1940 Act. Further, the current credit support provided by the Treasury to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and any additional credit support it may provide in the future, could have the effect of lowering the interest rates we expect to receive from Agency RMBS, thereby tightening the spread between the interest we earn on these securities and the cost of financing them. All of the foregoing as well as unforeseen consequences resulting from the foregoing could materially and adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition.
A significant portion of our financing is from Annaly which is a significant shareholder of ours and which owns our Manager.
Our ability to fund our investments on a leveraged basis depends to a large extent upon our ability to secure warehouse, repurchase, credit, and/or commercial paper financing on acceptable terms. The current dislocation in the non-Agency mortgage sector has made it difficult for us to obtain short-term financing on favorable terms. As a result, we have completed loan securitizations in order to obtain long-term financing and terminated our un-utilized whole loan repurchase agreements in order to avoid paying non-usage fees under those agreements. In addition, commencing in 2008, we entered into a RMBS repurchase agreement with Annaly, which owns approximately 6.7% of our outstanding shares of common stock. This agreement contains customary representations, warranties and covenants contained in such agreements including Annaly having the right to make margin calls if the value of our RMBS collateralizing the agreement falls. As of December 31, 2009, we had $259.0 million outstanding under this agreement which consists of approximately 13% of our total financing. Our RMBS repurchase agreement with Annaly is at market rates and is secured by the RMBS pledged under the agreement and is callable by Annaly on a weekly basis. We do not expect to increase significantly the amount of securities pledged to Annaly or significantly increase or decrease the funds we borrow from Annaly. We cannot assure you that Annaly will continue to provide us with such financing. If Annaly does not provide us with financing, we cannot assure you that we will be able to replace such financing. If we are not able to replace this financing, we could be forced to sell our assets at an inopportune time when prices are depressed.
Risks Associated With Our Management and Relationship With Our Manager
We are dependent on our Manager and its key personnel for our success.
We have no separate facilities and are completely reliant on our Manager. We have no employees other than our officers. Our officers are also employees of our Manager, which has significant discretion as to the implementation of our investment and operating policies and strategies. Accordingly, we depend on the diligence, skill and network of business contacts of the senior management of our Manager. Our Manager’s employees evaluate, negotiate, structure, close and monitor our investments; therefore, our success will depend on their continued service. The departure of any of the senior managers of our Manager could have a material adverse effect on our performance. In addition, we can offer no assurance that our Manager will remain our investment manager or that we will continue to have access to our Manager’s senior managers. Our management agreement with our Manager only extends until December 31, 2010. If the management agreement is terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage us, we may not be able to execute our business plan. Moreover, our Manager is not obligated to dedicate certain of its employees exclusively to us nor is it obligated to dedicate any specific portion of its time to our business, and none of our Manager’s employees are contractually dedicated to us under our management agreement with our Manager. The only employees of our Manager who are primarily dedicated to our operations are Christian J. Woschenko, our Head of Investments, and William B. Dyer, our Head of Underwriting.
There are conflicts of interest in our relationship with our Manager and Annaly, which could result in decisions that are not in the best interests of our stockholders.
We are subject to conflicts of interest arising out of our relationship with Annaly and our Manager. An Annaly executive officer is our Manager’s sole director, two of Annaly’s employees are our directors and several of Annaly’s employees are officers of our Manager and us. Specifically, each of our officers also serves as an employee of our Manager or its affiliates. As a result, our Manager and our officers may have conflicts between their duties to us and their duties to, and interests in, Annaly or our Manager. There may also be conflicts in allocating investments which are suitable both for us and Annaly as well as other FIDAC managed investment vehicles, including CreXus Investment Corp., or CreXus, a public specialty finance company that acquires, manages, and finances, directly or through its subsidiaries, commercial mortgage loans and other commercial real estate debt, CMBS, and other commercial real estate-related assets. Annaly owns approximately 4.5 million shares of common stock of CreXus. Annaly and CreXus may compete with us with respect to certain investments which we may want to acquire, and as a result we may either not be presented with the opportunity or have to compete with Annaly to acquire these investments. Our Manager and our officers may choose to allocate favorable investments to Annaly or CreXus instead of to us. The ability of our Manager and its officers and employees to engage in other business activities may reduce the time our Manager spends managing us. Further, during turbulent conditions in the mortgage industry, distress in the credit markets or other times when we will need focused support and assistance from our Manager, other entities for which our Manager also acts as an investment manager will likewise require greater focus and attention, placing our Manager’s resources in high demand. In such situations, we may not receive the necessary support and assistance we require or would otherwise receive if we were internally managed or if our Manager did not act as a manager for other entities. There is no assurance that the allocation policy that addresses some of the conflicts relating to our investments will be adequate to address all of the conflicts that may arise. In addition, we have entered into a repurchase agreement with Annaly, our Manager’s parent, to finance our RMBS. This financing arrangement may make us less likely to terminate our Manager. It could also give rise to further conflicts because Annaly may be a creditor of ours. As one of our creditors, Annaly’s interests may diverge from the interests of our stockholders.
We pay our Manager substantial management fees regardless of the performance of our portfolio. Our Manager’s entitlement to substantial nonperformance-based compensation might reduce its incentive to devote its time and effort to seeking investments that provide attractive risk-adjusted returns for our portfolio. This in turn could hurt both our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and the market price of our common stock. Annaly owns approximately 6.7% of our outstanding shares of common stock which entitles them to receive quarterly distributions. In evaluating investments and other management strategies, this may lead our Manager to place emphasis on the maximization of revenues at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital. Investments with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative. This could result in increased risk to the value of our invested portfolio. Annaly may sell the shares in us purchased concurrently with our initial public offering at any time after the earlier of (i) November 15, 2010 or (ii) the termination of the management agreement. Annaly may sell the shares in us purchased immediately after our 2008 secondary offering at any time after the earlier of (i) October 24, 2011 or (ii) the termination of the management agreement. Annaly may sell the shares in us that it purchased immediately after our April 15, 2009 secondary offering at any time after the earlier of (i) April 15, 2012 or (ii) the termination of the management agreement. Annaly may sell the shares in us that it purchased immediately after our May 27, 2009 secondary offering at any time after the earlier of (i) May 27, 2012 or (ii) the termination of the management agreement. To the extent Annaly sells some of its shares, its interests may be less aligned with our interests.
The management agreement with our Manager was not negotiated on an arm’s-length basis and may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party and may be costly and difficult to terminate.
Our president, chief financial officer, head of investments, treasurer, controller, secretary and head of underwriting also serve as employees of our Manager. In addition, certain of our directors are employees of our Manager or its affiliates. Our management agreement with our Manager was negotiated between related parties, and its terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party. Termination of the management agreement with our Manager without cause is difficult and costly. Our independent directors will review our Manager’s performance and the management fees annually, and following the initial term, the management agreement may be terminated annually by us without cause upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors, or by a vote of the holders of at least a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock (other than those shares held by Annaly or its affiliates), based upon: (i) our Manager’s unsatisfactory performance that is materially detrimental to us, or (ii) a determination that the management fees payable to our Manager are not fair, subject to our Manager’s right to prevent termination based on unfair fees by accepting a reduction of management fees agreed to by at least two-thirds of our independent directors. Our Manager must be provided 180-days’ prior notice of any such termination. Additionally, upon such termination, the management agreement provides that we will pay our Manager a termination fee equal to three times the average annual base management fee calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter. These provisions may adversely affect our ability to terminate our Manager without cause. Our Manager is only contractually committed to serve us until December 31, 2010. Thereafter, the management agreement is renewable on an annual basis, however, our Manager may terminate the management agreement annually upon 180-days’ prior notice. If the management agreement is terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage us, we may not be able to execute our business plan.
Our board of directors approved very broad investment guidelines for our Manager and will not approve each investment decision made by our Manager.
Our Manager is authorized to follow very broad investment guidelines. Our board of directors periodically reviews our investment guidelines and our investment portfolio, but does not, and is not required to review all of our proposed investments or any type or category of investment, except that an investment in a security structured or managed by our Manager must be approved by a majority of our independent directors. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, our board of directors relies primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Furthermore, our Manager uses complex strategies, and transactions entered into by our Manager may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our board of directors. Our Manager has great latitude within the broad investment guidelines in determining the types of assets it may decide are proper investments for us, which could result in investment returns that are substantially below expectations or that result in losses, which would materially and adversely affect our business operations and results. Further, decisions made and investments entered into by our Manager may not be in the best interests of our stockholders.
We may change our investment strategy, asset allocation, or financing plans without stockholder consent, which may result in riskier investments.
We may change our investment strategy, asset allocation, or financing plans at any time without the consent of our stockholders, which could result in our making investments that are different from, and possibly riskier than, the investments described in this Form 10-K. A change in our investment strategy or financing plans may increase our exposure to interest rate and default risk and real estate market fluctuations. Furthermore, a change in our asset allocation could result in our making investments in asset categories different from those described in this Form 10-K. These changes could adversely affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
While investments in investment vehicles managed by our Manager require approval by a majority of our independent directors, our Manager has an incentive to invest our funds in investment vehicles managed by our Manager because of the possibility of generating an additional incremental management fee, which may reduce other investment opportunities available to us. In addition, we cannot assure you that investments in investment vehicles managed by our Manager will prove beneficial to us.
We may invest in CDOs managed by our Manager, including the purchase or sale of all or a portion of the equity of such CDOs, which may result in an immediate loss in book value and present a conflict of interest between us and our Manager.
We may invest in securities of CDOs managed by our Manager. If all of the securities of a CDO managed by our Manager were not fully placed as a result of our not investing, our Manager could experience losses due to changes in the value of the underlying investments accumulated in anticipation of the launch of such investment vehicle. The accumulated investments in a CDO transaction are generally sold at the price at which they were purchased and not the prevailing market price at closing. Accordingly, to the extent we invest in a portion of the equity securities for which there has been a deterioration of value since the securities were purchased, we would experience an immediate loss equal to the decrease in the market value of the underlying investment. As a result, the interests of our Manager in our investing in such a CDO may conflict with our interests and that of our stockholders.
Our investment focus is different from those of other entities that are or have been managed by our Manager.
Our investment focus is different from those of other entities that are or have been managed by our Manager. In particular, entities managed by our Manager have not purchased whole mortgage loans or structured whole loan securitizations. In addition, our Manager has limited experience in managing CDOs and investing in CDOs, non-Agency RMBS, CMBS and other ABS which we may pursue as part of our investment strategy. Accordingly, our Manager’s historical returns are not indicative of its performance for our investment strategy and we can offer no assurance that our Manager will replicate the historical performance of the Manager’s investment professionals in their previous endeavors. Our investment returns could be substantially lower than the returns achieved by our Manager’s investment professionals’ previous endeavors.
We compete with investment vehicles of our Manager for access to our Manager’s resources and investment opportunities.
Our Manager provides investment and financial advice to a number of investment vehicles, including CreXus, and some of our Manager’s personnel are also employees of Annaly and in that capacity are involved in Annaly’s investment process. Accordingly, we will compete with our Manager’s other investment vehicles and with Annaly for our Manager’s resources. Our Manager may sponsor and manage other investment vehicles with an investment focus that overlaps with ours, which could result in us competing for access to the benefits that we expect our relationship with our Manager will provide to us.
Risks Related To Our Business
We have a limited operating history and may not continue to operate successfully or generate sufficient revenue to make or sustain distributions to our stockholders.
We were organized in June 2007, commenced operations in November 2007, and have a limited operating history. We cannot assure you that we will be able to operate our business successfully or implement our operating policies and strategies described in this Form 10-K. The results of our operations depend on many factors, including the availability of opportunities for the acquisition of assets, the valuation of our assets, the level and volatility of interest rates, readily accessible short and long-term financing and the terms of the financing, conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions.
Failure to procure adequate capital and funding on favorable terms, or at all, would adversely affect our results and may, in turn, negatively affect the market price of shares of our common stock and our ability to distribute dividends to our stockholders.
The capital and credit markets have been experiencing extreme volatility and disruption for more than a year. The volatility and disruption have reached unprecedented levels. In some cases, the markets have exerted downward pressure on stock prices and credit capacity for certain lenders. We depend upon the availability of adequate funding and capital for our operations. We intend to finance our assets over the long-term through a variety of means, including repurchase agreements, credit facilities, securitizations, commercial paper and CDOs. Our access to capital depends upon a number of factors over which we have little or no control, including:
| · | general market conditions; |
| · | the market’s perception of our growth potential; |
| · | our current and potential future earnings and cash distributions; |
| · | the market price of the shares of our capital stock; and |
| · | the market’s view of the quality of our assets. |
The current situation in the mortgage sector and the current weakness in the broader credit markets could adversely affect one or more of our potential lenders and could cause one or more of our lenders or potential lenders to be unwilling or unable to provide us with financing. In general, this could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity or require us to sell assets at an inopportune time or price.
We have and expect to use a number of sources to finance our investments, including repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities, securitizations, asset-backed commercial paper and term CDOs. Current market conditions have affected the cost and availability of financing from each of these sources — and their individual providers — to different degrees; some sources generally are unavailable, some are available but at a high cost, and some are largely unaffected. For example, in the repurchase agreement market, borrowers have been affected differently depending on the type of security they are financing. Non-Agency RMBS have been harder to finance, depending on the type of assets collateralizing the RMBS. The amount, term and margin requirements associated with these types of financings have been negatively impacted.
Currently, warehouse facilities to finance whole loan prime residential mortgages are generally available from major banks, but at significantly higher cost and greater margin requirements than previously offered. Many major banks that offer warehouse facilities have also reduced the amount of capital available to new entrants and consequently the size of those facilities offered now are smaller than those previously available.
It is currently a challenging market to term finance whole loans through securitization or bonds issued by a CDO structure. The highly rated senior bonds in these securitizations and CDO structures currently have liquidity, but at much wider spreads than issues priced earlier this year. The junior subordinate tranches of these structures currently have few buyers and current market conditions have forced issuers to retain these lower rated bonds rather than sell them.
Certain issuers of ABCP, have been unable to place (or roll) their securities, which has resulted, in some instances, in forced sales of MBS, and other securities which has further negatively impacted the market value of these assets. These market conditions are fluid and likely to change over time.
As a result, the execution of our investment strategy may be dictated by the cost and availability of financing from these different sources.
In addition, the impairment of other financial institutions could negatively affect us. If one or more major market participants fails or otherwise experience a major liquidity crisis, as was the case for Bear Stearns & Co. in March 2008, and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September 2008, it could adversely affect the marketability of all fixed income securities and this could negatively impact the value of the securities we acquire, thus reducing our net book value.
Furthermore, if any of our potential lenders or any of our lenders are unwilling or unable to provide us with financing, we could be forced to sell our securities or residential mortgage loans at an inopportune time when prices are depressed.
Our business, results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected by disruptions in the financial markets. We cannot assure you, under such extreme conditions, that these markets will remain an efficient source of long-term financing for our assets. If our strategy is not viable, we will have to find alternative forms of financing for our assets, which may not be available. Further, as a REIT, we are required to distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain, to our stockholders and are therefore not able to retain significant amounts of our earnings for new investments. We cannot assure you that any, or sufficient, funding or capital will be available to us in the future on terms that are acceptable to us. If we cannot obtain sufficient funding on acceptable terms, there may be a negative impact on the market price of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Moreover, our ability to grow will be dependent on our ability to procure additional funding. To the extent we are not able to raise additional funds through the issuance of additional equity or borrowings, our growth will be constrained.
We operate in a highly competitive market for investment opportunities and more established competitors may be able to compete more effectively for investment opportunities than we can.
A number of entities compete with us to make the types of investments that we plan to make. We compete with other REITs, public and private funds, commercial and investment banks and commercial finance companies. Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably greater financial, technical and marketing resources than we do. Several other REITs have recently raised, or are expected to raise, significant amounts of capital, and may have investment objectives that overlap with ours, which may create competition for investment opportunities. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that are not available to us. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of investments and establish more favorable relationships than us. We cannot assure you that the competitive pressures we face will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Also, as a result of this competition, we may not be able to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities from time to time, and we can offer no assurance that we will be able to identify and make investments that are consistent with our investment objectives.
Loss of our 1940 Act exemption would adversely affect us and negatively affect the market price of shares of our common stock and our ability to distribute dividends and could result in the termination of the management agreement with our Manager.
We intend to conduct our operations so that neither we nor any of our subsidiaries are required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act. Because we are a holding company that will conduct its businesses primarily through wholly-owned subsidiaries, the securities issued by these subsidiaries that are excepted from the definition of “investment company” under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we may own, may not have a combined value in excess of 40% of the value of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis. This requirement limits the types of businesses in which we may engage through our subsidiaries. In addition, the assets we and our subsidiaries may acquire are limited by the provisions of the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations promulgated under the 1940 Act and SEC staff interpretative guidance, which may adversely affect our performance.
If the value of securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excepted from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we own, exceeds 40% of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis, or if one or more of such subsidiaries fail to maintain an exception or exemption from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either (a) to substantially change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company or (b) to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, either of which could have an adverse effect on us and the market price of our securities. If we were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, we would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to our capital structure (including our ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the 1940 Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, and other matters.
We expect Chimera Asset Holding LLC and certain subsidiaries that we may form in the future to rely upon the exemption from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, which is available for entities “primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” This exemption generally requires that at least 55% of these subsidiaries’ assets must be comprised of qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of each of their portfolios must be comprised of qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets under the 1940 Act. We expect each of our subsidiaries relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) to rely on guidance published by the SEC staff or on our analyses of guidance published with respect to other types of assets to determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets. If the SEC staff publishes new or different guidance with respect to these matters, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. In addition, we may be limited in our ability to make certain investments and these limitations could result in the subsidiary holding assets we might wish to sell or selling assets we might wish to hold.
Certain of our subsidiaries may rely on the exemption provided by Section 3(c)(6) which excludes from the definition of “investment company” any company primarily engaged, directly or through majority-owned subsidiaries, in a business, among others, described in Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act (from which not less than 25% of such company's gross income during its last fiscal year was derived) together with an additional business or additional businesses other than investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities. The SEC staff has issued little interpretive guidance with respect to Section 3(c)(6) and any guidance published by the staff could require us to adjust our strategy accordingly.
We expect certain of our subsidiaries we may form in the future, including subsidiaries we may form for the purpose of borrowing under TALF, to rely on Section 3(c)(7) for their 1940 Act exemption and, therefore our interest in each of these subsidiaries would constitute an “investment security” for purposes of determining whether we pass the 40% test.
We may in the future, however, organize one or more subsidiaries, including subsidiaries we may form for the purpose of borrowing under TALF, that seek to rely on the 1940 Act exemption provided to certain structured financing vehicles by Rule 3a-7. If we organize subsidiaries that rely on Rule 3a-7 for an exemption from the 1940 Act, these subsidiaries will also need to comply with the restrictions described in “Business—Operating and Regulatory Structure—1940 Act Exemption.” In general, Rule 3a-7 exempts from the 1940 Act issuers that limit their activities as follows:
• the issuer issues securities the payment of which depends primarily on the cash flow from “eligible assets” that by their terms convert into cash within a finite time period;
• the securities sold are fixed income securities rated investment grade by at least one rating agency (fixed income securities which are unrated or rated below investment grade may be sold to institutional accredited investors and any securities may be sold to “qualified institutional buyers” and to persons involved in the organization or operation of the issuer);
• the issuer acquires and disposes of eligible assets (1) only in accordance with the agreements pursuant to which the securities are issued, (2) so that the acquisition or disposition does not result in a downgrading of the issuer’s fixed income securities and (3) the eligible assets are not acquired or disposed of for the primary purpose of recognizing gains or decreasing losses resulting from market value changes; and
• unless the issuer is issuing only commercial paper, the issuer appoints an independent trustee, takes reasonable steps to transfer to the trustee an ownership or perfected security interest in the eligible assets, and meets rating agency requirements for commingling of cash flows.
Any subsidiary also would need to be structured to comply with any guidance that may be issued by the Division of Investment Management of the SEC on how the subsidiary must be organized to comply with the restrictions contained in Rule 3a-7. Compliance with Rule 3a-7 may require that the indenture governing the subsidiary include additional limitations on the types of assets the subsidiary may sell or acquire out of the proceeds of assets that mature, are refinanced or otherwise sold, on the period of time during which such transactions may occur, and on the amount of transactions that may occur. In light of the requirements of Rule 3a-7, our ability to manage assets held in a special purpose subsidiary that complies with Rule 3a-7 will be limited and we may not be able to purchase or sell assets owned by that subsidiary when we would otherwise desire to do so, which could lead to losses. Initially, we will limit the aggregate value of our interests in our subsidiaries that may in the future seek to rely on Rule 3a-7 to 20% or less of our total assets on an unconsolidated basis, as we continue to discuss with the SEC staff the use of subsidiaries that rely on Rule 3a-7 to finance our operations.
The determination of whether an entity is a majority-owned subsidiary of our company is made by us. The 1940 Act defines a majority-owned subsidiary of a person as a company of which 50% or more of the outstanding voting securities are owned by such person, or by another company which is a majority-owned subsidiary of such person. The 1940 Act further defines voting securities as any security presently entitling the owner or holder thereof to vote for the election of directors of a company. We treat companies in which we own at least a majority of the outstanding voting securities as majority-owned subsidiaries for purposes of the 40% test. We have not requested the SEC to approve our treatment of any company as a majority-owned subsidiary and the SEC has not done so. If the SEC were to disagree with our treatment of one or more companies as majority-owned subsidiaries, we would need to adjust our strategy and our assets in order to continue to pass the 40% test. Any such adjustment in our strategy could have a material adverse effect on us.
There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of REITs, including the Division of Investment Management of the SEC providing more specific or different guidance regarding these exemptions, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If we or our subsidiaries fail to maintain an exception or exemption from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (a) change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (b) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or (c) register as an investment company, any of which could negatively affect the value of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to make distributions which could have an adverse effect on our business and the market price for our shares of common stock.
Rapid changes in the values of our RMBS, residential mortgage loans, and other real estate-related investments may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or our exemption from the 1940 Act.
If the market value or income potential of our RMBS, residential mortgage loans, and other real estate-related investments declines as a result of increased interest rates, prepayment rates or other factors, we may need to increase our real estate investments and income or liquidate our non-qualifying assets to maintain our REIT qualification or our exemption from the 1940 Act. If the decline in real estate asset values or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish. This difficulty may be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of any non-real estate assets we may own. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent the REIT and 1940 Act considerations.
We leverage our investments, which may adversely affect our return on our investments and may reduce cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
We leverage our investments through borrowings, generally through the use of repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities, credit facilities, securitizations, commercial paper and CDOs. We are not required to maintain any specific debt-to-equity ratio. The amount of leverage we use varies depending on our ability to obtain credit facilities, the lenders’ and rating agencies’ estimates of the stability of the investments’ cash flow, and our assessment of the appropriate amount of leverage for the particular assets we are funding. Under some credit facilities, we expect to be required to maintain minimum average cash balances in connection with borrowings. Our return on our investments and cash available for distribution to our stockholders may be reduced to the extent that changes in market conditions prevent us from leveraging our investments, require us to decrease our rate of leverage, increase the amount of collateral we post, or increase the cost of our financing relative to the income that can be derived from the assets acquired. Our debt service payments will reduce cash flow available for distributions to stockholders, which could adversely affect the price of our common stock. We may not be able to meet our debt service obligations, and, to the extent that we cannot, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to foreclosure or sale to satisfy the obligations. We leverage certain of our assets through repurchase agreements. A decrease in the value of these assets may lead to margin calls which we will have to satisfy. We may not have the funds available to satisfy any such margin calls and we may be forced to sell assets at significantly depressed prices due to market conditions or otherwise. The satisfaction of such margin calls may reduce cash flow available for distribution to our stockholders. Any reduction in distributions to our stockholders or sales of assets at inopportune times or prices may cause the value of our common stock to decline, in some cases, precipitously.
We depend on warehouse and repurchase facilities, credit facilities and commercial paper to execute our business plan, and our inability to access funding could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and business.
Our ability to fund our investments depends to a large extent upon our ability to secure warehouse, repurchase, credit, and commercial paper financing on acceptable terms. We can provide no assurance that we will be successful in establishing sufficient warehouse, repurchase, and credit facilities and issuing commercial paper. In addition, because warehouse, repurchase, and credit facilities and commercial paper are short-term commitments of capital, the lenders may respond to market conditions, which may favor an alternative investment strategy for them, making it more difficult for us to secure continued financing. During certain periods of the credit cycle, such as recently, lenders may curtail their willingness to provide financing. If we are not able to renew our then existing warehouse, repurchase, and credit facilities and issue commercial paper or arrange for new financing on terms acceptable to us, or if we default on our covenants or are otherwise unable to access funds under any of these facilities, we will have to curtail our asset acquisition activities.
It is possible that the lenders that provide us with financing could experience changes in their ability to advance funds to us, independent of our performance or the performance of our investments, including our mortgage loans. In addition, if the regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders change, they may be required to significantly increase the cost of the warehouse facilities that they provide to us. Our lenders also may revise their eligibility requirements for the types of residential mortgage loans they are willing to finance or the terms of such financings, based on, among other factors, the regulatory environment and their management of perceived risk, particularly with respect to assignee liability. Financing of equity-based lending, for example, may become more difficult in the future. Moreover, the amount of financing we will receive under our warehouse and repurchase facilities will be directly related to the lenders’ valuation of the assets that secure the outstanding borrowings. Typically warehouse, repurchase, and credit facilities grant the respective lender the absolute right to reevaluate the market value of the assets that secure outstanding borrowings at any time. If a lender determines in its sole discretion that the value of the assets has decreased, it has the right to initiate a margin call. A margin call would require us to transfer additional assets to such lender without any advance of funds from the lender for such transfer or to repay a portion of the outstanding borrowings. Any such margin call could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, business, liquidity and ability to make distributions to our stockholders, and could cause the value of our common stock to decline. We may be forced to sell assets at significantly depressed prices to meet such margin calls and to maintain adequate liquidity, which could cause us to incur losses. Moreover, to the extent we are forced to sell assets at such time, given market conditions, we may be forced to sell assets at the same time as others facing similar pressures to sell similar assets, which could greatly exacerbate a difficult market environment and which could result in our incurring significantly greater losses on our sale of such assets. In an extreme case of market duress, a market may not even be present for certain of our assets at any price.
The current dislocation and weakness in the broader mortgage markets could adversely affect one or more of our potential lenders and could cause one or more of our potential lenders to be unwilling or unable to provide us with financing. This could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity. If one or more major market participants fails or otherwise experiences a major liquidity crisis, as was the case for Bear Stearns & Co. in March 2008 and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September 2008, it could negatively impact the marketability of all fixed income securities, including Agency and non-Agency RMBS, residential mortgage loans and real estate related securities, and this could negatively impact the value of the securities we acquire, thus reducing our net book value. Furthermore, if any of our potential lenders or any of our lenders, including Annaly, are unwilling or unable to provide us with financing, we could be forced to sell our assets at an inopportune time when prices are depressed.
Beginning in mid-February 2008, credit markets experienced a dramatic and sudden adverse change. The severity of the limitation on liquidity was largely unanticipated by the markets. Credit once again froze, and in the mortgage market, valuations of non-Agency RMBS and whole mortgage loans came under severe pressure. This credit crisis began in early February 2008, when a heavily leveraged investor announced that it had to de-lever and liquidate a portfolio of approximately $30 billion of non-Agency RMBS. Prices of these types of securities dropped dramatically, and lenders started lowering the prices on non-Agency RMBS that they held as collateral to secure the loans they had extended. The subsequent failure in March 2008 of Bear Stearns & Co. worsened the crisis. As the year progressed, deterioration in the fair value of our assets continued, we received and met margin calls under our repurchase agreements, which resulted in our obtaining additional funding from third parties, including from Annaly, an affiliate, and taking other steps to increase our liquidity.
The challenges of 2008 and 2009 have continued as financing difficulties have severely pressured liquidity and asset values. In September 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., a major investment bank, experienced a major liquidity crisis and failed. Securities trading remains limited and mortgage securities financing markets remain challenging as the industry continues to report negative news. This dislocation in the non-Agency mortgage sector has made it difficult for us to obtain short-term financing on favorable terms. As a result, we have completed loan securitizations in order to obtain long-term financing and terminated our un-utilized whole loan repurchase agreements in order to avoid paying non-usage fees under those agreements. In addition, we have continued to seek funding from Annaly. Under these circumstances, we expect to take actions intended to protect our liquidity, which may include reducing borrowings and disposing of assets as well as raising capital.
During this period of market dislocation, fiscal and monetary policymakers have established new liquidity facilities for primary dealers and commercial banks, reduced short-term interest rates, and passed legislation that is intended to address the challenges of mortgage borrowers and lenders. It is not possible for us to predict how these actions will impact our business. Although these aggressive steps are intended to protect and support the US housing and mortgage market, we continue to operate under very difficult market conditions. As a result, there can be no assurance that the EESA, the TARP, the TALF, PPIP or other policy initiatives will have a beneficial impact on the financial markets, including current extreme levels of volatility. We cannot predict whether or when such actions may occur or what impact, if any, such actions could have on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Certain financing facilities may contain covenants that restrict our operations and may inhibit our ability to grow our business and increase revenues.
Certain financing facilities we may enter into may contain extensive restrictions, covenants, and representations and warranties that, among other things, require us to satisfy specified financial, asset quality, loan eligibility and loan performance tests. If we fail to meet or satisfy any of these covenants or representations and warranties, we would be in default under these agreements and our lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under the agreements to be immediately due and payable, enforce their respective interests against collateral pledged under such agreements and restrict our ability to make additional borrowings. Certain financing agreements may contain cross-default provisions, so that if a default occurs under any one agreement, the lenders under our other agreements could also declare a default. The covenants and restrictions we expect in our financing facilities may restrict our ability to, among other things:
| · | incur or guarantee additional debt; |
| · | make certain investments or acquisitions; |
| · | make distributions on or repurchase or redeem capital stock; |
| · | engage in mergers or consolidations; |
| · | finance mortgage loans with certain attributes; |
| · | reduce liquidity below certain levels; |
| · | incur operating losses for more than a specified period; |
| · | enter into transactions with affiliates; and |
| · | hold mortgage loans for longer than established time periods. |
These restrictions may interfere with our ability to obtain financing, including the financing needed to qualify as a REIT, or to engage in other business activities, which may significantly harm our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. A default and resulting repayment acceleration could significantly reduce our liquidity, which could require us to sell our assets to repay amounts due and outstanding. This could also significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and our ability to make distributions, which could cause the value of our common stock to decline. A default will also significantly limit our financing alternatives such that we will be unable to pursue our leverage strategy, which could curtail our investment returns.
The repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities and credit facilities and commercial paper that we use to finance our investments may require us to provide additional collateral and may restrict us from leveraging our assets as fully as desired.
We will use repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities, credit facilities and commercial paper to finance our investments. We currently have uncommitted repurchase agreements with 18 counterparties, including Annaly, for financing our RMBS. Our repurchase agreements are uncommitted and the counterparty may refuse to advance funds under the agreements to us. If the market value of the loans or securities pledged or sold by us to a funding source decline in value, we may be required by the lending institution to provide additional collateral or pay down a portion of the funds advanced, but we may not have the funds available to do so. Posting additional collateral will reduce our liquidity and limit our ability to leverage our assets, which could adversely affect our business. In the event we do not have sufficient liquidity to meet such requirements, lending institutions can accelerate repayment of our indebtedness, increase our borrowing rates, liquidate our collateral or terminate our ability to borrow. Such a situation would likely result in a rapid deterioration of our financial condition and possibly necessitate a filing for protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Further, financial institutions may require us to maintain a certain amount of cash that is not invested or to set aside non-levered assets sufficient to maintain a specified liquidity position which would allow us to satisfy our collateral obligations. As a result, we may not be able to leverage our assets as fully as we would choose which could reduce our return on equity. If we are unable to meet these collateral obligations, then, as described above, our financial condition could deteriorate rapidly.
If the counterparty to our repurchase transactions defaults on its obligation to resell the underlying security back to us at the end of the transaction term, or if the value of the underlying security has declined as of the end of that term or if we default on our obligations under the repurchase agreement, we will lose money on our repurchase transactions.
When we engage in a repurchase transaction, we generally sell securities to the transaction counterparty and receive cash from the counterparty. The counterparty is obligated to resell the securities back to us at the end of the term of the transaction, which is typically 30-90 days. Because the cash we receive from the counterparty when we initially sell the securities to the counterparty is less than the value of those securities (this difference is referred to as the haircut), if the counterparty defaults on its obligation to resell the securities back to us we would incur a loss on the transaction equal to the amount of the haircut (assuming there was no change in the value of the securities). We would also lose money on a repurchase transaction if the value of the underlying securities has declined as of the end of the transaction term, as we would have to repurchase the securities for their initial value but would receive securities worth less than that amount. Any losses we incur on our repurchase transactions could adversely affect our earnings, and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders. If we default on one of our obligations under a repurchase transaction, the counterparty can terminate the transaction and cease entering into any other repurchase transactions with us. In that case, we would likely need to establish a replacement repurchase facility with another repurchase dealer in order to continue to leverage our portfolio and carry out our investment strategy. There is no assurance we would be able to establish a suitable replacement facility.
Our rights under our repurchase agreements are subject to the effects of the bankruptcy laws in the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of us or our lenders under the repurchase agreements.
In the event of our insolvency or bankruptcy, certain repurchase agreements may qualify for special treatment under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the effect of which, among other things, would be to allow the lender under the applicable repurchase agreement to avoid the automatic stay provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and to foreclose on the collateral agreement without delay. In the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of a lender during the term of a repurchase agreement, the lender may be permitted, under applicable insolvency laws, to repudiate the contract, and our claim against the lender for damages may be treated simply as an unsecured creditor. In addition, if the lender is a broker or dealer subject to the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, or an insured depository institution subject to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, our ability to exercise our rights to recover our securities under a repurchase agreement or to be compensated for any damages resulting from the lender’s insolvency may be further limited by those statutes. These claims would be subject to significant delay and, if and when received, may be substantially less than the damages we actually incur.
An increase in our borrowing costs relative to the interest we receive on our assets may adversely affect our profitability, and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
As our repurchase agreements and other short-term borrowings mature, we will be required either to enter into new borrowings or to sell certain of our investments. An increase in short-term interest rates at the time that we seek to enter into new borrowings would reduce the spread between our returns on our assets and the cost of our borrowings. This would adversely affect our returns on our assets that are subject to prepayment risk, including our mortgage-backed securities, which might reduce earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
If we issue senior securities we will be exposed to additional risks.
If we decide to issue senior securities in the future, it is likely that they will be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Additionally, any convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock and may result in dilution to owners of our common stock. We and, indirectly, our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities.
Our securitizations will expose us to additional risks.
We have and expect to continue to securitize certain of our portfolio investments to generate cash for funding new investments. We expect to structure these transactions either as financing transactions or as sales for GAAP. In each such transaction, we convey a pool of assets to a special purpose vehicle, the issuing entity, and the issuing entity issues one or more classes of non-recourse notes pursuant to the terms of an indenture. The notes are secured by the pool of assets. In exchange for the transfer of assets to the issuing entity, we receive the cash proceeds of the sale of non-recourse notes and a 100% interest in the equity of the issuing entity. The securitization of our portfolio investments might magnify our exposure to losses on those portfolio investments because any equity interest we retain in the issuing entity would be subordinate to the notes issued to investors and we would, therefore, absorb all of the losses sustained with respect to a securitized pool of assets before the owners of the notes experience any losses. Moreover, we cannot be assured that we will be able to access the securitization market, or be able to do so at favorable rates. The inability to securitize our portfolio could hurt our performance and our ability to grow our business.
The use of CDO financings with over-collateralization requirements may have a negative impact on our cash flow.
We expect that the terms of CDOs we may sponsor will generally provide that the principal amount of assets must exceed the principal balance of the related bonds by a certain amount, commonly referred to as ‘‘over-collateralization.’’ We anticipate that the CDO terms will provide that, if certain delinquencies or losses exceed the specified levels based on the analysis by the rating agencies (or any financial guaranty insurer) of the characteristics of the assets collateralizing the bonds, the required level of over-collateralization may be increased or may be prevented from decreasing as would otherwise be permitted if losses or delinquencies did not exceed those levels. Other tests (based on delinquency levels or other criteria) may restrict our ability to receive net income from assets collateralizing the obligations. We cannot assure you that the performance tests will be satisfied. In advance of completing negotiations with the rating agencies or other key transaction parties on our future CDO financings, we cannot assure you of the actual terms of the CDO delinquency tests, over-collateralization terms, cash flow release mechanisms or other significant factors regarding the calculation of net income to us. Given recent volatility in the CDO market, rating agencies may depart from historic practices for CDO financings, making them more costly for us. Failure to obtain favorable terms with regard to these matters may materially and adversely affect the availability of net income to us. If our assets fail to perform as anticipated, our over-collateralization or other credit enhancement expense associated with our CDO financings will increase.
Hedging against interest rate exposure may adversely affect our earnings, which could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to losses from adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity varies in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, the type of assets held and other changing market conditions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:
| · | interest rate hedging can be expensive, particularly during periods of rising and volatile interest rates; |
| · | available interest rate hedges may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk for which protection is sought; |
| · | the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related liability; |
| · | the amount of income that a REIT may earn from hedging transactions (other than through TRSs) to offset interest rate losses is limited by federal tax provisions governing REITs; |
| · | the credit quality of the party owing money on the hedge may be downgraded to such an extent that it impairs our ability to sell or assign our side of the hedging transaction; and |
| · | the party owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay. |
Our hedging transactions, which are intended to limit losses, may actually limit gains and increase our exposure to losses. As a result, our hedging activity may adversely affect our earnings, which could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders. In addition, hedging instruments involve risk since they often are not traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house, or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, there are no requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and positions. Furthermore, the enforceability of agreements underlying derivative transactions may depend on compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in its default. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to cover our commitments, if any, at the then current market price. Although generally we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging positions, it may not always be possible to dispose of or close out a hedging position without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to enter into an offsetting contract in order to cover our risk. We cannot assure you that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and we may be required to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in losses.
Our hedging strategies may not be successful in mitigating the risks associated with interest rates.
Subject to complying with REIT tax requirements, we have employed and intend to continue to employ techniques that limit, or hedge, the adverse effects of rising interest rates on our short-term repurchase agreements. In general, our hedging strategy depends on our view of our entire portfolio, consisting of assets, liabilities and derivative instruments, in light of prevailing market conditions. We could misjudge the condition of our investment portfolio or the market.
Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates and principal repayments, the type of securities held and other changing market conditions. Our actual hedging decisions will be determined in light of the facts and circumstances existing at the time and may differ from our currently anticipated hedging strategy. These techniques may include entering into interest rate caps, collars, floors, forward contracts, futures or swap agreements. We may conduct certain hedging transactions through a TRS, which will be subject to federal, state and, if applicable, local income tax.
There are no perfect hedging strategies, and interest rate hedging may fail to protect us from loss. Alternatively, we may fail to properly assess a risk to our investment portfolio or may fail to recognize a risk entirely, leaving us exposed to losses without the benefit of any offsetting hedging activities. The derivative financial instruments we select may not have the effect of reducing our interest rate risk. The nature and timing of hedging transactions may influence the effectiveness of these strategies. Poorly designed strategies or improperly executed transactions could actually increase our risk and losses. In addition, hedging activities could result in losses if the event against which we hedge does not occur. For example, interest rate hedging could fail to protect us or adversely affect us because, among other things:
| · | available interest rate hedging may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk for which protection is sought; |
| · | the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related liability; |
| · | as explained in further detail in the risk factor immediately below, the party owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay; |
| · | the credit quality of the party owing money on the hedge may be downgraded to such an extent that it impairs our ability to sell or assign our side of the hedging transaction; and |
| · | the value of derivatives used for hedging may be adjusted from time to time in accordance with accounting rules to reflect changes in fair value. Downward adjustments, or “mark-to-market losses,” would reduce our stockholders’ equity. |
Whether the derivatives we acquire achieve hedge accounting treatment or not, hedging generally involves costs and risks. Our hedging strategies may adversely affect us because hedging activities involve costs that we will incur regardless of the effectiveness of the hedging activity. Those costs may be higher in periods of market volatility, both because the counterparties to our derivative agreements may demand a higher payment for taking risks, and because repeated adjustments of our hedges during periods of interest rate changes also may increase costs. Especially if our hedging strategies are not effective, we could incur significant hedging-related costs without any corresponding economic benefits.
We have elected not to qualify for hedge accounting treatment.
We record derivative and hedge transactions in accordance with GAAP. We have elected not to qualify for hedge accounting treatment. As a result, our operating results may suffer because losses on the derivatives that we enter into may not be offset by a change in the fair value of the related hedged transaction.
Declines in the fair values of our investments may adversely affect periodic reported results and credit availability, which may reduce earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
A substantial portion of our assets are classified for accounting purposes as “available-for-sale” and carried at fair value. Changes in the fair values of those assets will be directly charged or credited to OCI. In addition, a decline in values will reduce the book value of our assets. A decline in the fair value of our assets may adversely affect us, particularly in instances where we have borrowed money based on the fair value of those assets. If the fair value of those assets declines, the lender may require us to post additional collateral to support the loan. If we were unable to post the additional collateral, we would have to sell the assets at a time when we might not otherwise choose to do so. A reduction in credit available may reduce our earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to stockholders.
The lack of liquidity in our investments may adversely affect our business.
We may invest in securities or other instruments that are not liquid. It may be difficult or impossible to obtain third party pricing on the investments we purchase. Illiquid investments typically experience greater price volatility as a ready market does not exist. In addition, validating third party pricing for illiquid investments may be more subjective than more liquid investments. The illiquidity of our investments may make it difficult for us to sell such investments if the need or desire arises. In addition, if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we have previously recorded our investments. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be relatively limited, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
We are highly dependent on information systems and third parties, and systems failures could significantly disrupt our business, which may, in turn, negatively affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.
Our business is highly dependent on communications and information systems. Any failure or interruption of our systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities, including mortgage-backed securities trading activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and negatively affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.
Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war may affect the market for our common stock, the industry in which we conduct our operations and our profitability.
Terrorist attacks may harm our results of operations and your investment. We cannot assure you that there will not be further terrorist attacks against the United States or U.S. businesses. These attacks or armed conflicts may directly impact the property underlying our asset-based securities or the securities markets in general. Losses resulting from these types of events are uninsurable. More generally, any of these events could cause consumer confidence and spending to decrease or result in increased volatility in the United States and worldwide financial markets and economies. Adverse economic conditions could harm the value of the property underlying our asset-backed securities or the securities markets in general which could harm our operating results and revenues and may result in the volatility of the value of our securities.
We are subject to the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
As we are a public company, our management is required to deliver a report that assesses the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires an independent registered public accounting firm to deliver an attestation report on management’s assessment of, and the operating effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting in conjunction with their opinion on our audited financial statements beginning with the year ending December 31, 2008. Substantial work on our part is required to implement appropriate processes, document the system of internal control over key processes, assess their design, remediate any deficiencies identified and test their operation. This process is expected to be both costly and challenging. We cannot give any assurances that material weaknesses will not be identified in the future in connection with our compliance with the provisions of Sections 302 and 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The existence of any material weakness described above would preclude a conclusion by management and our independent auditors that we maintained effective internal control over financial reporting. Our management may be required to devote significant time and expense to remediate any material weaknesses that may be discovered and may not be able to remediate all material weaknesses in a timely manner. The existence of any material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could also result in errors in our financial statements that could require us to restate our financial statements, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations and cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, all of which could lead to a decline in the trading price of our stock.
The increasing number of proposed federal, state and local laws may increase our risk of liability with respect to certain mortgage loans, may include judicial modification provisions and could increase our cost of doing business.
The United States Congress and various state and local legislatures are considering legislation, which, among other provisions, would permit limited assignee liability for certain violations in the mortgage loan origination process, and would allow judicial modification of loan principal in the event of personal bankruptcy. We cannot predict whether or in what form Congress or the various state and local legislatures may enact legislation affecting our business. We are evaluating the potential impact of these initiatives, if enacted, on our practices and results of operations. As a result of these and other initiatives, we are unable to predict whether federal, state or local authorities will require changes in our practices in the future or in our portfolio. These changes, if required, could adversely affect our profitability, particularly if we make such changes in response to new or amended laws, regulations or ordinances in any state where we acquire a significant portion of our mortgage loans, or if such changes result in us being held responsible for any violations in the mortgage loan origination process, or if the principal amount of loans we own or are in RMBS pools we own are modified in the personal bankruptcy process.
Risks Related to Our Investments
We might not be able to purchase residential mortgage loans, mortgage-backed securities and other investments that meet our investment criteria or at favorable spreads over our borrowing costs.
To the extent we purchase assets using leverage, our net income depends on our ability to acquire residential mortgage loans, mortgage-backed securities and other investments at favorable spreads over our borrowing costs. Our investments are selected by our Manager, and our stockholders will not have input into such investment decisions. Our Manager has conducted due diligence with respect to each investment purchased. However, there can be no assurance that our Manager's due diligence processes will uncover all relevant facts or that any investment will be successful.
We may not realize income or gains from our investments.
We invest to generate both current income and capital appreciation. The investments we invest in may, however, not appreciate in value and, in fact, may decline in value, and the debt securities we invest in may default on interest or principal payments. Accordingly, we may not be able to realize income or gains from our investments. Any gains that we do realize may not be sufficient to offset any other losses we experience. Any income that we realize may not be sufficient to offset our expenses.
Our investments may be concentrated and will be subject to risk of default.
While we intend to diversify our portfolio of investments, we are not required to observe specific diversification criteria. To the extent that our portfolio is concentrated in any one region or type of security, downturns relating generally to such region or type of security may result in defaults on a number of our investments within a short time period, which may reduce our net income and the value of our shares and accordingly may reduce our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.
Our investments in subordinated RMBS are generally in the “first loss” position and our investments in the mezzanine RMBS are generally in the “second loss” position and therefore subject to losses.
In general, losses on a mortgage loan included in a securitization will be borne first by the equity holder of the issuing trust, and then by the “first loss” subordinated security holder and then by the “second loss” mezzanine holder. In the event of default and the exhaustion of any classes of securities junior to those in which we invest and there is any further loss, we will not be able to recover all of our investment in the securities we purchase. In addition, if the underlying mortgage portfolio has been overvalued by the originator, or if the values subsequently decline and, as a result, less collateral is available to satisfy interest and principal payments due on the related RMBS, the securities in which we invest may effectively become the “first loss” position behind the more senior securities, which may result in significant losses to us. The prices of lower credit quality securities are generally less sensitive to interest rate changes than more highly rated investments, but more sensitive to adverse economic downturns or individual issuer developments. A projection of an economic downturn, for example, could cause a decline in the price of lower credit quality securities because the ability of obligors of mortgages underlying RMBS to make principal and interest payments may be impaired. In such event, existing credit support in the securitization structure may be insufficient to protect us against loss of our principal on these securities.
Increases in interest rates could negatively affect the value of our investments, which could result in reduced earnings or losses and negatively affect the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
We have and will continue to invest in real estate-related assets by acquiring RMBS, residential mortgage loans, CMBS and CDOs backed by real estate-related assets. Under a normal yield curve, an investment in these assets will decline in value if long-term interest rates increase. Declines in market value may ultimately reduce earnings or result in losses to us, which may negatively affect cash available for distribution to our stockholders. A significant risk associated with these investments is the risk that both long-term and short-term interest rates will increase significantly. If long-term rates were to increase significantly, the market value of these investments would decline, and the duration and weighted average life of the investments would increase. We could realize a loss if these assets were sold. At the same time, an increase in short-term interest rates would increase the amount of interest owed on the repurchase agreements or other adjustable rate financings we may enter into to finance the purchase of these assets. Market values of our investments may decline without any general increase in interest rates for a number of reasons, such as increases in defaults, increases in voluntary prepayments for those investments that are subject to prepayment risk and widening of credit spreads.
In a period of rising interest rates, our interest expense could increase while the interest we earn on our fixed-rate assets would not change, which would adversely affect our profitability.
Our operating results will depend in large part on the differences between the income from our assets, net of credit losses and financing costs. We anticipate that, in most cases, the income from such assets will respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Consequently, changes in interest rates, particularly short-term interest rates, may significantly influence our net income. Increases in these rates will tend to decrease our net income and market value of our assets. Interest rate fluctuations resulting in our interest expense exceeding our interest income would result in operating losses for us and may limit or eliminate our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Interest rate mismatches between our investments and any borrowings used to fund purchases of these assets may reduce our income during periods of changing interest rates.
We intend to fund some of our acquisitions of residential mortgage loans, real estate-related securities and real estate loans with borrowings that have interest rates based on indices and repricing terms with shorter maturities than the interest rate indices and repricing terms of our adjustable-rate assets. Accordingly, if short-term interest rates increase, this may harm our profitability.
Some of the residential mortgage loans, real estate-related securities and real estate loans we acquire are and will be fixed-rate securities. This means that their interest rates will not vary over time based upon changes in a short-term interest rate index. Therefore, the interest rate indices and repricing terms of the assets that we acquire and their funding sources will create an interest rate mismatch between our assets and liabilities. During periods of changing interest rates, these mismatches could reduce our net income, dividend yield and the market price of our stock.
Accordingly, in a period of rising interest rates, we could experience a decrease in net income or a net loss because the interest rates on our borrowings adjust whereas the interest rates on our fixed-rate assets remain unchanged.
Interest rate caps on our adjustable rate RMBS may adversely affect our profitability.
Adjustable-rate RMBS are typically subject to periodic and lifetime interest rate caps. Periodic interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase during any given period. Lifetime interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase over the life of the security. Our borrowings typically will not be subject to similar restrictions. Accordingly, in a period of rapidly increasing interest rates, the interest rates paid on our borrowings could increase without limitation while caps could limit the interest rates on our adjustable-rate RMBS. This problem is magnified for hybrid adjustable-rate and adjustable-rate RMBS that are not fully indexed. Further, some hybrid adjustable-rate and adjustable-rate RMBS may be subject to periodic payment caps that result in a portion of the interest being deferred and added to the principal outstanding. As a result, we may receive less cash income on hybrid adjustable-rate and adjustable-rate RMBS than we need to pay interest on our related borrowings. These factors could reduce our net interest income and cause us to suffer a loss.
A significant portion of our portfolio investments will be recorded at fair value, as determined in accordance with our pricing policy as approved by our board of directors and, as a result, there will be uncertainty as to the value of these investments.
A significant portion of our portfolio of investments is in the form of securities that are not publicly traded. The fair value of securities and other investments that are not publicly traded may not be readily determinable. It may be difficult or impossible to obtain third party pricing on the investments we purchase. We value these investments quarterly at fair value, as determined in accordance with our pricing policy as approved by our board of directors. Because such valuations are inherently uncertain, may fluctuate over short periods of time and may be based on estimates, our determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these securities existed. The value of our common stock could be adversely affected if our determinations regarding the fair value of these investments were materially higher than the values that we ultimately realize upon their disposal.
A prolonged economic slowdown, a recession or declining real estate values could impair our investments and harm our operating results.
Many of our investments are susceptible to economic slowdowns or recessions, which could lead to financial losses in our investments and a decrease in revenues, net income and assets. Unfavorable economic conditions also could increase our funding costs, limit our access to the capital markets or result in a decision by lenders not to extend credit to us. These events could prevent us from increasing investments and have an adverse effect on our operating results.
Changes in prepayment rates could negatively affect the value of our investment portfolio, which could result in reduced earnings or losses and negatively affect the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
There are seldom any restrictions on borrowers’ abilities to prepay their residential mortgage loans. Homeowners tend to prepay mortgage loans faster when interest rates decline. Consequently, owners of the loans have to reinvest the money received from the prepayments at the lower prevailing interest rates. Conversely, homeowners tend not to prepay mortgage loans when interest rates increase. Consequently, owners of the loans are unable to reinvest money that would have otherwise been received from prepayments at the higher prevailing interest rates. This volatility in prepayment rates may affect our ability to maintain targeted amounts of leverage on our portfolio of residential mortgage loans, RMBS, and CDOs backed by real estate-related assets and may result in reduced earnings or losses for us and negatively affect the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
To the extent our investments are purchased at a premium, faster than expected prepayments result in a faster than expected amortization of the premium paid, which would adversely affect our earnings. Conversely, if these investments were purchased at a discount, faster than expected prepayments accelerate our recognition of income. On February 10, 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced their intention to significantly increase their purchases of delinquent loans from the pools of mortgages collateralizing their Agency MBS beginning in March 2010, which could materially impact the rate of principal prepayments on our Agency MBS guaranteed by these two government sponsored enterprises or GSEs.
The mortgage loans we invest in and the mortgage loans underlying the mortgage and asset-backed securities we invest in are subject to delinquency, foreclosure and loss, which could result in losses to us.
Residential mortgage loans are typically secured by single-family residential property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property is dependent upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors, including a general economic downturn, acts of God, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances, may impair borrowers’ abilities to repay their loans. In addition, we invest in non-Agency RMBS, which are backed by residential real property but, in contrast to Agency RMBS, their principal and interest is not guaranteed by federally chartered entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and, in the case of Ginnie Mae, the U.S. government. The U.S. Department of Treasury and FHFA have also entered into preferred stock purchase agreements between the U.S. Department of Treasury and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pursuant to which the U.S. Department of Treasury will ensure that each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac maintains a positive net worth. Asset-backed securities are bonds or notes backed by loans or other financial assets. The ability of a borrower to repay these loans or other financial assets is dependent upon the income or assets of these borrowers. Commercial mortgage loans are secured by multifamily or commercial property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss that are greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential property. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of such property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Net operating income of an income producing property can be affected by, among other things, tenant mix, success of tenant businesses, property management decisions, property location and condition, competition from comparable types of properties, changes in laws that increase operating expense or limit rents that may be charged, any need to address environmental contamination at the property, the occurrence of any uninsured casualty at the property, changes in national, regional or local economic conditions or specific industry segments, declines in regional or local real estate values, declines in regional or local rental or occupancy rates, increases in interest rates, real estate tax rates and other operating expenses, changes in governmental rules, regulations and fiscal policies, including environmental legislation, acts of God, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances. In the event of any default under a mortgage loan held directly by us, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan, which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations. In the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan. RMBS evidence interests in or are secured by pools of residential mortgage loans and CMBS evidence interests in or are secured by a single commercial mortgage loan or a pool of commercial mortgage loans. Accordingly, the RMBS and CMBS we invest in are subject to all of the risks of the respective underlying mortgage loans.
We may be required to repurchase mortgage loans or indemnify investors if we breach representations and warranties, which could harm our earnings.
If we sell loans, we would be required to make customary representations and warranties about such loans to the loan purchaser. Our residential mortgage loan sale agreements will require us to repurchase or substitute loans in the event we breach a representation or warranty given to the loan purchaser. In addition, we may be required to repurchase loans as a result of borrower fraud or in the event of early payment default on a mortgage loan. Likewise, we are required to repurchase or substitute loans if we breach a representation or warranty in connection with our securitizations. The remedies available to a purchaser of mortgage loans are generally broader than those available to us against the originating broker or correspondent. Further, if a purchaser enforces its remedies against us, we may not be able to enforce the remedies we have against the sellers. The repurchased loans typically can only be financed at a steep discount to their repurchase price, if at all. They are also typically sold at a significant discount to the unpaid principal balance. Significant repurchase activity could harm our cash flow, results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.
We may enter into derivative contracts that could expose us to contingent liabilities in the future.
Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, part of our investment strategy involves entering into derivative contracts that could require us to fund cash payments in certain circumstances. These potential payments will be contingent liabilities and therefore may not appear on our consolidated statement of financial condition. Our ability to fund these contingent liabilities will depend on the liquidity of our assets and access to capital at the time, and the need to fund these contingent liabilities could adversely impact our financial condition.
Our Manager’s due diligence of potential investments may not reveal all of the liabilities associated with such investments and may not reveal other weaknesses in such investments, which could lead to investment losses.
Before making an investment, our Manager assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the originator or issuer of the asset as well as other factors and characteristics that are material to the performance of the investment. In making the assessment and otherwise conducting customary due diligence, our Manager relies on resources available to it and, in some cases, an investigation by third parties. This process is particularly important with respect to newly formed originators or issuers with unrated and other subordinated tranches of MBS and ABS because there may be little or no information publicly available about these entities and investments. There can be no assurance that our Manager’s due diligence process will uncover all relevant facts or that any investment will be successful.
Our real estate investments are subject to risks particular to real property.
We own assets secured by real estate and may own real estate directly in the future, either through direct investments or upon a default of mortgage loans. Real estate investments are subject to various risks, including:
| · | acts of God, including earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters, which may result in uninsured losses; |
| · | acts of war or terrorism, including the consequences of terrorist attacks, such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001; |
| · | adverse changes in national and local economic and market conditions; |
| · | changes in governmental laws and regulations, fiscal policies and zoning ordinances and the related costs of compliance with laws and regulations, fiscal policies and ordinances; |
| · | costs of remediation and liabilities associated with environmental conditions such as indoor mold; and |
| · | the potential for uninsured or under-insured property losses. |
If any of these or similar events occurs, it may reduce our return from an affected property or investment and reduce or eliminate our ability to make distributions to stockholders.
We may be exposed to environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title.
In the course of our business, we may take title to real estate, and, if we do take title, we could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these properties. In such a circumstance, we may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation, and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or may be required to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances, or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. If we ever become subject to significant environmental liabilities, our business, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
We may in the future invest in RMBS collateralized by subprime mortgage loans, which are subject to increased risks.
We may in the future invest in RMBS backed by collateral pools of subprime residential mortgage loans. ‘‘Subprime’’ mortgage loans refer to mortgage loans that have been originated using underwriting standards that are less restrictive than the underwriting requirements used as standards for other first and junior lien mortgage loan purchase programs, such as the programs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These lower standards include mortgage loans made to borrowers having imperfect or impaired credit histories (including outstanding judgments or prior bankruptcies), mortgage loans where the amount of the loan at origination is 80% or more of the value of the mortgage property, mortgage loans made to borrowers with low credit scores, mortgage loans made to borrowers who have other debt that represents a large portion of their income and mortgage loans made to borrowers whose income is not required to be disclosed or verified. Due to economic conditions, including increased interest rates and lower home prices, as well as aggressive lending practices, subprime mortgage loans have in recent periods experienced increased rates of delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss, and they are likely to continue to experience delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss rates that are higher, and that may be substantially higher, than those experienced by mortgage loans underwritten in a more traditional manner. Thus, because of the higher delinquency rates and losses associated with subprime mortgage loans, the performance of RMBS backed by subprime mortgage loans in which we may invest could be correspondingly adversely affected, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.
Our Manager will utilize analytical models and data in connection with the valuation of our investments, and any incorrect, misleading or incomplete information used in connection therewith would subject us to potential risks.
Given the complexity of our investments and strategies, our Manager must rely heavily on analytical models (both net present value based loss mitigation models and those supplied by third-parties) and information and data supplied by third-parties, or Models and Data. Models and Data will be used to value investments or potential investments and also in connection with hedging our investments. When Models and Data prove to be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon expose us to potential risks. For example, by relying on Models and Data, especially valuation models, our Manager may be induced to buy certain investments at prices that are too high, to sell certain other investments at prices that are too low or to miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging based on faulty Models and Data may prove to be unsuccessful. Furthermore, any valuations of our investments that are based on valuation models may prove to be incorrect.
Some of the risks of relying on analytical models and third-party data are particular to analyzing tranches from securitizations, such as MBS. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) collateral cash flows and/or liability structures may be incorrectly modeled in all or only certain scenarios, or may be modeled based on simplifying assumptions that lead to errors; (ii) information about collateral may be incorrect, incomplete, or misleading; (iii) collateral or bond historical performance (such as historical prepayments, defaults, cash flows, etc.) may be incorrectly reported, or subject to interpretation (e.g., different issuers may report delinquency statistics based on different definitions of what constitutes a delinquent loan); or (iv) collateral or bond information may be outdated, in which case the models may contain incorrect assumptions as to what has occurred since the date information was last updated.
Some of the analytical models used by our Manager, such as mortgage prepayment models or mortgage default models, are predictive in nature. The use of predictive models has inherent risks. For example, such models may incorrectly forecast future behavior, leading to potential losses on a cash flow and/or a mark-to-market basis. In addition, the predictive models used by our Manager may differ substantially from those models used by other market participants, with the result that valuations based on these predictive models may be substantially higher or lower for certain investments than actual market prices. Furthermore, since predictive models are usually constructed based on historical data supplied by third-parties, the success of relying on such models may depend heavily on the accuracy and reliability of the supplied historical data and the ability of these historical models to accurately reflect future periods.
All valuation models rely on correct market data inputs. If incorrect market data is entered into even a well-founded valuation model, the resulting valuations will be incorrect. However, even if market data is inputted correctly, “model prices” will often differ substantially from market prices, especially for securities with complex characteristics, such as derivative securities.
Exchange rate fluctuations may limit gains or result in losses.
If we directly or indirectly hold assets denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars, we will be exposed to currency risk that may adversely affect performance. Changes in the U.S. dollar’s rate of exchange with other currencies may affect the value of investments in our portfolio and the income that we receive in respect of such investments. In addition, we may incur costs in connection with conversion between various currencies, which may reduce our net income and accordingly may reduce our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.
Regulatory and Legal Risks
Violations of federal, state and local laws by the originator, the servicer, or may result in rescission of the loans or penalties that may adversely impact our income.
Violations of certain provisions of federal, state and local laws by the originator, the servicer or us, as well as actions by governmental agencies, authorities and attorneys general, may limit our or the servicer’s ability to collect all or part of the principal of, or interest on, the residential mortgage loans we purchase and hold, and loans that serve as security for the MBS we purchase and hold. Violations could also subject the entity that made or modified the loans to damages and administrative enforcement (including disgorgement of prior interest and fees paid). In particular, a loan seller’s failure to comply with certain requirements of federal and state laws could subject the seller (and other assignees of the mortgage loans) to monetary penalties and result in the obligors’ rescinding the mortgage loans against the seller and any subsequent holders of the mortgage loans, even if the assignee was not responsible for and was unaware of those violations. These adverse consequences vary depending on the applicable law and may vary depending on the type or severity of the violation, but they typically include:
| · | the ability of the homeowner to rescind, or cancel, the loan; |
| · | the inability of the holder of the loan to collect all of the principal and interest otherwise due on the loan; |
| · | the right of the homeowner to a refund of amounts previously paid (which may include amounts financed by the loan), or to set off those amounts against his or her future loan obligations; and |
| · | the liability of the servicer and the owner of the loan for actual damages, statutory damages and punitive damages, civil or criminal penalties, costs and attorneys’ fees. |
The terms of the documents under which we intend to purchase loans, and the terms of the documents used to create the MBS we intend to purchase, may entitle the holders of the loans and the special purpose vehicles that hold loans in MBS to contractual indemnification against these liabilities. For example, the sellers of loans placed in an MBS typically represent that each mortgage loan was made in compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations at the time it was made. If there is a material breach of that representation, the seller may be contractually obligated to cure the breach or repurchase or replace the affected mortgage loan. If the seller is unable or otherwise fails to satisfy these obligations, the yield on the loans and MBS might be materially and adversely affected. Due to the well publicized recent deterioration in the housing and commercial property markets, many of the sellers that issued these indemnifications are no longer in business or are unable to financially respond to their indemnification obligations. Consequently, holders of interests in the loans and MBS may ultimately have to absorb the losses arising from the sellers’ violations. While we attempt to take these factors into account in the prices we pay for loans and MBS, we can offer no assurances concerning the validity of the assumptions we use in our pricing decisions.
Furthermore, the volume of new and modified laws and regulations at both the federal and state levels has increased in recent years. For example, H.R. 1105, which was signed into law in March 2009, gives the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, authority to issue rules under which it will define what constitutes unfair and deceptive practices relating to mortgage lending and loan servicing and which gives enforcement authority to state attorneys general. There is also an increased risk that the both we and the servicer of loans we purchase or that are held in MBS we purchase may be involved in litigation over violations or alleged violations of recently enacted and proposed laws. It is possible that these laws might result in additional significant costs and liabilities, which could further adversely affect the results of our operations. Any litigation would increase our expenses and reduce funds available for distribution to our stockholders.
Some local municipalities also have enacted laws that impose potentially significant penalties on loan servicing activities related to abandoned properties or real estate owned properties.
Any of these preceding could result in delays and/or reductions in receipts of amounts due on the loans we intend to purchase or on the loans held in MBS we intend to purchase, harming our income and operating results.
We may be subject to liability for potential violations of predatory lending and other laws, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.
Various federal, state and local laws have been enacted that are designed to discourage predatory lending practices and more are currently proposed. The federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, commonly known as HOEPA, prohibits inclusion of certain provisions in residential mortgage loans that have mortgage rates or origination costs in excess of prescribed levels and requires that borrowers be given certain disclosures before origination. Some states have enacted, or may enact, similar laws or regulations, which in some cases impose restrictions and requirements greater than those in HOEPA. In addition, under the anti-predatory lending laws of some states, the origination of certain residential mortgage loans, including loans that are not classified as “high cost” loans under applicable law, must satisfy a net tangible benefits test with respect to the related borrower. This test may be highly subjective and open to interpretation. As a result, a court may determine that a residential mortgage loan we hold, for example, does not meet the test even if the related originator reasonably believed that the test was satisfied.
Failure of residential mortgage loan originators or servicers to comply with these laws, to the extent any of their residential mortgage loans become part of our mortgage-related assets, could subject us, as an assignee or purchaser of the related residential mortgage loans or RMBS, to monetary penalties and could result in the borrowers rescinding the affected residential mortgage loans. Lawsuits have been brought in various states making claims against assignees or purchasers of high cost loans for violations of state law. Named defendants in these cases have included numerous participants in the secondary mortgage market. If the loans are found to have been originated in violation of predatory or abusive lending laws, we could incur losses, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.
There is the potential for limitations on our ability to finance purchases of loans and MBS, and for losses on the loans and MBS we purchase, as a result of violations of law by the originating lenders.
In June 2003, a California jury found a warehouse lender and securitization underwriter liable in part for fraud on consumers committed by a lender to whom it provided financing and underwriting services. The jury found that the investment bank was aware of the fraud and substantially assisted the lender in perpetrating the fraud by providing financing and underwriting services that allowed the lender to continue to operate, and held it liable for 10% of the plaintiff’s damages. This instance of liability is the first case we know of in which an investment bank was held partly responsible for violations committed by a mortgage lender customer. Shortly after the announcement of the jury verdict in the California case, the Florida Attorney General filed suit against the same financial institution, seeking an injunction to prevent it from financing mortgage loans within Florida, as well as damages and civil penalties, based on theories of unfair and deceptive trade practices and fraud. The suit claimed that this financial institution aided and abetted the same lender involved in the California case in its commission of fraudulent representations in Florida.
In December of 2008, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court’s order entered against a lender that enjoined the lender from foreclosing, without court approval, on certain mortgage loans secured by the borrower’s principal dwelling that the court considered “presumptively unfair.”
In May of 2009, another securitizer of residential mortgage loans entered into a settlement agreement with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts stemming from its investigation of subprime lending and securitization markets. The securitizer agreed to provide loan restructuring (including significant principal write-downs) valued at approximately $50 million to Massachusetts subprime borrowers and to make a $10 million payment to the Commonwealth.
If other courts or regulators take similar actions, investment banks and investors in residential and commercial mortgage loans and MBS (such as us) might face increased litigation as they are named as defendants in lawsuits and regulatory actions against the mortgage companies or securitizers with which they do business or they might be prohibited from foreclosing on loans they purchased. Some investment banks may charge more for warehouse lending and reduce the prices they pay for loans to build in the costs of this potential litigation or exit the business entirely, thereby increasing our cost of borrowing. Any such actions by courts and regulators, and any such increases in our costs of borrowing, could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and business prospects.
We are required to obtain various state licenses in order to purchase mortgage loans in the secondary market and there is no assurance we will be able to obtain or maintain those licenses.
While we are not required to obtain licenses to purchase mortgage-backed securities, we are required to obtain various state licenses to purchase mortgage loans in the secondary market. There is no assurance that we will obtain all of the licenses that we desire or that we will not experience significant delays in seeking these licenses. Furthermore, we will be subject to various information reporting requirements to maintain these licenses, and there is no assurance that we will satisfy those requirements. Our failure to obtain or maintain licenses will restrict our investment options and could harm our business.
The federal government’s pressing for refinancing of certain loans may affect prepayment rates for mortgage loans in MBS.
In addition to the increased pressure upon residential mortgage loan investors and servicers to engage in loss mitigation activities, the federal government is pressing for refinancing of certain loans, and this encouragement may affect prepayment rates for mortgage loans in MBS. In connection with government-related securities, in February 2009 President Obama unveiled the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, which, in part, calls upon Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loosen their eligibility criteria for the purchase of loans in order to provide access to low-cost refinancing for borrowers who are current on their mortgage payments but who cannot otherwise qualify to refinance at a lower market rate. The major change is to permit an increase in the LTV ratio of a refinancing loan eligible for sale up to 105%. The charters governing the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prohibit purchases of loans with loan to value ratios in excess of 80% unless the loans have mortgage insurance (or unless other types of credit enhancement are provided in accordance with the statutory requirements). The FHFA, which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, determined that new mortgage insurance will not be required on the refinancing if the applicable entity already owns the loan or guarantees the related MBS. Additionally, the U.S. Treasury reports that in some cases a new appraisal will not be necessary upon refinancing. The U.S. Treasury estimates that up to 5,000,000 homeowners with loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac may be eligible for this refinancing program, which is scheduled to terminate in June 2010.
In connection with all RMBS, the HERA authorized a voluntary FHA mortgage insurance program called HOPE for Homeowners, or H4H Program, designed to refinance certain delinquent borrowers into new FHA-insured loans. The H4H Program targets delinquent borrowers under conventional mortgage loans, as well as under government-insured or -guaranteed mortgage loans, that were originated on or before January 1, 2008. Holders of existing mortgage loans being refinanced under the H4H Program must accept a write-down of principal and waive all prepayment fees. While the use of the program has been extremely limited to date, Congress continues to amend the program to encourage its use. The H4H Program is effective through September 30, 2011.
To the extent these and other economic stabilization or stimulus efforts are successful in increasing prepayment speeds for residential mortgage loans, such as those in RMBS, that could potentially harm our income and operating results, particularly in connection with loans or MBS purchased at a premium or our interest-only securities.
Federal and state agencies have taken enforcement actions and enacted regulations and government programs that require government sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), insured depository institutions, and state regulated loan servicers to engage in loss mitigation activities relating to residential mortgage loans.
Federal and state agencies have taken enforcement actions and enacted regulations that require government sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), insured depository institutions, and state regulated loan servicers to engage in loss mitigation activities relating to residential mortgage loans. Other agencies have published policies that strongly recommend these entities to engage in loss mitigation activities. These loss mitigation activities may include, for example, loan modifications that significantly reduce interest and payments, deferrals of payments, and reductions of principal balances.
On March 4, 2009, the U.S. Treasury announced HAMP, which is intended to enable borrowers to retain their homes when feasible. Eligibility for relief initially is limited to owner occupant borrowers with loans of less than $729,000 that were in existence as of January 1, 2009. HAMP requires eligibility criteria and modification terms that may be more favorable to the borrower than an investor or the servicer may otherwise choose to use. As the modification plan applies to owner occupied residential mortgage loans in default or imminent default, absent a modification the loans may be subject to foreclosure. Nevertheless, an increase in loans that take advantage of the modification opportunities may result in the repurchase of pooled loans in RMBS, thereby terminating our rights to earn interest on those loans.
There is litigation currently pending that challenges prior loss mitigation activities on the premise that they are contrary to the terms of the agreements under which established residential mortgage securities were formed. Nevertheless, the recent enactment of the HFSTH Act provides a safe harbor in some circumstances from these types of lawsuits for servicers entering into “qualified loss mitigation plans” with respect to residential mortgages originated before the act was enacted. A servicer’s duty to any investor or other party to maximize the net present value of any mortgage being modified will be construed to apply to all investors and other parties and will be deemed satisfied when the following criteria are met: (a) a default on the payment of the mortgage has occurred, is imminent, or is reasonably foreseeable, (b) the mortgagor occupies the property securing the mortgage as his or her principal residence and (c) the servicer reasonably determined that the application of such qualified loss mitigation plan will likely provide an anticipated recovery on the outstanding principal mortgage debt that will exceed the anticipated recovery through foreclosure. Any servicer that is deemed to be acting in the best interests of all investors and parties is relieved of liability to any party owed a duty as discussed above and shall not be subject to any injunction, stay or other equitable relief to such party based solely upon the implementation by the servicer of a qualified loss mitigation plan. The act further provides that any person, including a trustee, issuer and loan originator, shall not be liable for monetary damages or subject to an injunction, stay or other equitable relief based solely upon that person’s cooperation with a servicer in implementing a qualified loss mitigation program that meets the criteria set forth above. By protecting servicers from such liabilities, this safe harbor may encourage loan modifications and servicers may not be able to service the mortgage loans in accordance with their prior practices. As a result of the enactment of the HFSTH Act, loss mitigation activities may result in even more significant reductions in the returns on loans and RMBS we purchase, potentially harming our income and operating results.
Proposed Congressional legislation (H.R. 3126) supported by President Obama would, if passed, create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (“CFPA”). The bill has undergone numerous changes since its introduction, and there are reports about broad revisions to the bill. The bill would establish a new federal agency whose principal purpose would be to regulate the provision of financial services and products. As proposed, the bill would grant the CFPA sweeping and broad powers and provide the CFPA authority to both mandate and limit the financial products offered to consumers. It is possible the CFPA could significantly limit our ability to offer products and services, and impose requirements on us as to what financial services and products we offer and the manner in which we market our services and products. Because of the uncertainty concerning whether the bill will be passed, and its coverage, it is difficult to predict the impact it will have on our operations, income and expenses.
We will likely be subject to civil liability if we fail to make required disclosures to consumers.
Purchasers of consumer purpose, residential mortgage loans have affirmative disclosure obligations to consumers under the HFSTH Act, which Congress enacted in May 2009 with an immediate effective date. This new statutory obligation will subject purchasers of mortgage loans to civil liability if they fail to make the required disclosures. Specifically, section 404 of the HFSTH Act amends the Truth in Lending Act to provide that a creditor that purchases or is assigned a mortgage loan must notify the borrower in writing of a sale or transfer of his or her mortgage loan, not later than 30 days after the transaction’s completion. The notice must include how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor, the location of the place where the transfer of ownership is recorded and any other relevant information about the new creditor. This disclosure would be in addition to any transfer of servicing notice required under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Federal consumer credit law does not typically impose responsibility on assignees to communicate directly with mortgagors, and the statutory language is ambiguous.
Litigation alleging inability to foreclose may limit our ability to recover on some of the loans we purchase or that are held in RMBS.
In October 2007, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed 14 cases in which plaintiffs sought to foreclose mortgages held in securitization trusts by ruling that those plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. In each case, the judge found that the plaintiff was not the owner of the note and mortgage on the date the foreclosure complaint was filed in court. Similar actions have been initiated in other states. These actions arise as a result of the common practice in the mortgage industry of mortgage loan sellers providing the loan purchasers unrecorded assignments of the mortgage in blank (i.e., the assignments do not name the assignee). Some courts have held that before a note holder may initiate a foreclosure, the note holder must show proof to the court that the mortgage itself has been properly assigned to the purchaser each time the mortgage loan has been sold. It is sometimes difficult to obtain and then record originals of each successive assignment. It is still unclear whether higher courts will uphold the requirements imposed by these lower courts.
Until the issue is settled, investors in mortgage loans are at risk of being unable to foreclose on defaulted loans, or at a minimum will be subject to delays until all assignments in the chain of the loan’s title are properly recorded. Thus, we may not be able to recover on some of the loans we purchase or that are held in the RMBS we purchase, or we may suffer delays in foreclosure, all of which could result in a lower return on our loans and RMBS.
In addition, some legislatures are also instituting stringent proof of ownership requirements that a servicer must satisfy before commencing a foreclosure action. By way of example, the New York State Assembly earlier this year amended state law to require that any foreclosure complaint contain an affirmative allegation that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the note and mortgage at issue or has been delegated the authority to institute the foreclosure action by the owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note. Again, laws of this type may limit our ability to recover on some of the loans we purchase or that are held in the RMBS we purchase, and may result in delays in the foreclosure process, all of which could result in a lower return on our loans and RMBS.
Legislative action to provide mortgage relief and foreclosure moratoriums may negatively impact our business.
As delinquencies and defaults in residential mortgages have recently increased, there has been an increasing amount of legislative action that might restrict our ability to foreclose and resell the property of a customer in default. For example, some recently enacted state laws may require the lender to deliver a notice of intent to foreclose, provide borrowers additional time to cure or reinstate their loans, impose mandatory settlement conference and mediation requirements, require lenders to offer loan modifications, and prohibit initiation of foreclosure until the borrower has been provided time to consult with foreclosure counselors.
Alternatively, new federal legislation and some legislatures provide a subsidy to a customer to permit the customer to continue to make payments during a period of hardship. In the case of a subsidy, it is possible that we might be required to forego a portion of the amount otherwise due on the loan for a temporary period.
Finally, some state legislatures are requiring foreclosing lenders to give special notices to tenants in properties that the lenders are foreclosing on, or to permit the tenants to remain in the property for a period of time following the foreclosure.
These laws delay the initiation or completion of foreclosure proceedings on specified types of residential mortgage loans, or otherwise limit the ability of residential loan servicers to take actions that may be essential to preserve the value of the mortgage loans on behalf of the holders of MBS. Any such limitations are likely to cause delayed or reduced collections from mortgagors and generally increased servicing costs. Any restriction on our ability to foreclose on a loan, any requirement that we forego a portion of the amount otherwise due on a loan or any requirement that we modify any original loan terms is likely to negatively impact our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
United States military operations may increase risk of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act shortfalls.
Under the federal Service members Civil Relief Act, a borrower who enters active military service after the origination of his or her mortgage loan generally may not be required to pay interest above an annual rate of 6%, and the note holder is restricted from exercising certain enforcement remedies, during the period of the borrower’s active duty status. Several states also have enacted or are considering similar laws with varying applicability and effect. As a result of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has placed a substantial number of armed forces reservists and members of the National Guard on active duty status. It is possible that the number of reservists and members of the National Guard placed on active duty status may remain at high levels for an extended time. To the extent that a member of the military, or a member of the armed forces reserves or National Guard who is called to active duty, is a mortgagor on a loan underlying RMBS we may purchase, the interest rate limitation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and any comparable state law, will apply. An increase in the number of borrowers taking advantage of those laws may increase servicing expenses for loans underlying RMBS we may purchase, and may also reduce cash flow and the interest payments collected from those borrowers. In the event of default, the laws may result in delaying or preventing the loan servicer from exercising otherwise available remedies for default. If these events occur, they may result in interest shortfalls on the loans in underlying RMBS we may purchase that will be borne by holders of those RMBS.
Risks Related To Our Common Stock
The market price and trading volume of our shares of common stock may be volatile.
At December 31, 2009, we had 670,371,587 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. The market price of shares of our common stock may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations. In addition, the trading volume in our shares of common stock may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. We cannot assure you that the market price of our shares of common stock will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. Some of the factors that could negatively affect our share price or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our shares of common stock include those set forth under “Risk Factors” and “A Warning About Forward-Looking Statements” and in the information incorporated and deemed to be incorporated by reference herein, as well as:
| · | actual or anticipated variations in our quarterly operating results or business prospects; |
| · | changes in our earnings estimates or publication of research reports about us or the real estate industry; |
| · | an inability to meet or exceed securities analysts' estimates or expectations; |
| · | increases in market interest rates; |
| · | hedging or arbitrage trading activity in our shares of common stock; |
| · | changes in market valuations of similar companies; |
| · | changes in valuations of our assets; |
| · | adverse market reaction to any increased indebtedness we incur in the future; |
| · | additions or departures of management personnel; |
| · | actions by institutional shareholders; |
| · | speculation in the press or investment community; |
| · | changes in our distribution policy; |
| · | regulatory changes affecting our industry generally or our business; |
| · | general market and economic conditions; and |
| · | future sales of our shares of common stock or securities convertible into, or exchangeable or exercisable for, our shares of common stock. |
Common stock eligible for future sale may have adverse effects on our share price.
If we issue a significant number of shares of common stock or securities convertible into common stock in a short period of time, there could be a dilution of the existing common stock and a decrease in the market price of the common stock.
We cannot predict the effect, if any, of future sales of common stock, or the availability of shares for future sales, on the market price of the common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of common stock, or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market prices for the common stock. At December 31, 2009, we had 670,371,587 shares of common stock issued and outstanding. Annaly owned approximately 6.7% of our outstanding shares of common stock as of December 31, 2009. Our equity incentive plan provides for grants of restricted common stock and other equity-based awards up to an aggregate of 8% of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock (on a fully diluted basis) at the time of the award, subject to a ceiling of 40,000,000 shares available for issuance under the plan. On January 2, 2008, our executive officers and other employees of our Manager and our independent directors were granted, as a group, 1,301,000 shares of our restricted common stock. The restricted common stock granted to our executive officers and other employees of our Manager or its affiliates vests in equal installments on the first business day of each fiscal quarter over a period of 10 years beginning on January 2, 2008, of which 269,800 shares vested and 21,955 shares were forfeited as of December 31, 2009. The restricted common stock granted to our executive officers and other employees of our Manager or its affiliates that remain outstanding and are unvested will fully vest on the death of the individual. The 1,031,200 shares of our restricted common stock granted to our executive officers and other employees of our Manager or its affiliates and to our independent directors that remains unvested as of December 31, 2009 represents approximately 0.15% of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock (on a fully diluted basis). We will not make distributions on shares of restricted stock that have not vested.
Annaly has agreed with us to a further lock-up period in connection with the shares purchased by Annaly concurrently with our initial public offering that will expire at the earlier of (i) November 15, 2010 or (ii) the termination of the management agreement. Annaly has agreed with us to a further lock-up period in connection with the shares purchased by Annaly immediately after our 2008 secondary offering that will expire at the earlier of (i) October 24, 2011 or (ii) the termination of the management agreement. Annaly has agreed with us to a further lock-up period in connection with the shares purchased by Annaly immediately after our April 15, 2009 secondary offering that will expire at the earlier of (i) April 15, 2012 or (ii) the termination of the management agreement. Annaly has agreed with us to a further lock-up period in connection with the shares purchased by Annaly immediately after our May 27, 2009 secondary offering that will expire at the earlier of (i) May 27, 2012 or (ii) the termination of the management agreement. When the lock-up periods expire, these common shares will become eligible for sale, in some cases subject to the requirements of Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act. The market price of our common stock may decline significantly when the restrictions on resale by certain of our stockholders lapse. Sales of substantial amounts of common stock or the perception that such sales could occur may adversely affect the prevailing market price for our common stock.
There is a risk that our stockholders may not receive distributions or that distributions may not grow over time.
We intend to make distributions on a quarterly basis out of assets legally available to our stockholders in amounts such that all or substantially all of our REIT taxable income in each year is distributed. We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and our ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors described herein. All distributions will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our earnings, our financial condition, maintenance of our REIT status and other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time. Among the factors that could adversely affect our results of operations and impair our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders are:
| · | the profitability of the investments of net proceeds from our equity raises; |
| · | our ability to make profitable investments; |
| · | margin calls or other expenses that reduce our cash flow; |
| · | defaults in our asset portfolio or decreases in the value of our portfolio; and |
| · | the fact that anticipated operating expense levels may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates. |
A change in any one of these factors could affect our ability to make distributions. We cannot assure you that we will achieve investment results that will allow us to make a specified level of cash distributions or year-to-year increases in cash distributions.
Market interest rates may have an effect on the trading value of our shares.
One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our shares is our distribution rate as a percentage of our share price relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective investors may demand a higher distribution rate or seek alternative investments paying higher dividends or interest. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions can affect the market value of our shares. For instance, if interest rates rise, it is likely that the market price of our shares will decrease as market rates on interest-bearing securities, such as bonds, increase.
Investing in our shares may involve a high degree of risk.
The investments we make in accordance with our investment objectives may result in a high amount of risk when compared to alternative investment options and volatility or loss of principal. Our investments may be highly speculative and aggressive, are subject to credit risk, interest rate, and market value risks, among others, and therefore an investment in our shares may not be suitable for someone with lower risk tolerance.
Broad market fluctuations could negatively impact the market price of our common stock.
The stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market price of many companies in industries similar or related to ours and that have been unrelated to these companies’ operating performances. These broad market fluctuations could reduce the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, our operating results and prospects may be below the expectations of public market analysts and investors or may be lower than those of companies with comparable market capitalizations, which could lead to a material decline in the market price of our common stock.
Future sales of shares may have adverse consequences for investors.
We may issue additional shares in subsequent public offerings or private placements to make new investments or for other purposes. We are not required to offer any such shares to existing shareholders on a pre-emptive basis. Therefore, it may not be possible for existing shareholders to participate in such future share issues, which may dilute the existing shareholders’ interests in us. Annaly owns approximately 6.7% of our shares of common stock excluding unvested shares of restricted stock granted to our executive officers and employees of our Manager or its affiliates. Annaly will be permitted, subject to the requirements of Rule 144 under the Securities Act, to sell such shares upon the earlier of (i) (a) November 15, 2010 with respect to shares acquired concurrently with our initial public offering and (b) October 24, 2011 with respect to shares Annaly acquired immediately after our 2008 secondary offering (c) April 15, 2012 with respect to shares Annaly acquired immediately after our April 2009 secondary offering (d) May 27, 2012 with respect to shares Annaly acquired immediately after our May 2009 secondary offering or (ii) the termination of the management agreement.
Our charter and bylaws contain provisions that may inhibit potential acquisition bids that stockholders may consider favorable, and the market price of our common stock may be lower as a result.
Our charter and bylaws contain provisions that have an anti-takeover effect and inhibit a change in our board of directors. These provisions include the following:
| · | There are ownership limits and restrictions on transferability and ownership in our charter. To qualify as a REIT for each taxable year after 2007, not more than 50% of the value of our outstanding stock may be owned, directly or constructively, by five or fewer individuals during the second half of any calendar year. In addition, our shares must be beneficially owned by 100 or more persons during at least 335 days of a taxable year of 12 months or during a proportionate part of a shorter taxable year for each taxable year after 2007. To assist us in satisfying these tests, our charter generally prohibits any person from beneficially or constructively owning more than 9.8% in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of any class or series of our outstanding capital stock. These restrictions may discourage a tender offer or other transactions or a change in the composition of our board of directors or control that might involve a premium price for our shares or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders and any shares issued or transferred in violation of such restrictions being automatically transferred to a trust for a charitable beneficiary, thereby resulting in a forfeiture of the additional shares. |
| · | Our charter permits our board of directors to issue stock with terms that may discourage a third party from acquiring us. Our charter permits our board of directors to amend the charter without stockholder approval to increase the total number of authorized shares of stock or the number of shares of any class or series and to issue common or preferred stock, having preferences, conversion or other rights, voting powers, restrictions, limitations as to dividends or other distributions, qualifications, or terms or conditions of redemption as determined by our board. Thus, our board could authorize the issuance of stock with terms and conditions that could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of some or a majority of our shares might receive a premium for their shares over the then-prevailing market price of our shares. |
| · | Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act. Maryland law provides that ‘‘control shares’’ of a corporation acquired in a ‘‘control share acquisition’’ will have no voting rights except to the extent approved by a vote of two-thirds of the votes eligible to be cast on the matter under the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act. ‘‘Control shares’’ means voting shares of stock that, if aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquirer or in respect of which the acquirer is able to exercise or direct the exercise of voting power (except solely by a revocable proxy), would entitle the acquirer to exercise voting power in electing directors within one of the following ranges of voting power: one-tenth or more but less than one-third, one-third or more but less than a majority, or a majority or more of all voting power. A ‘‘control share acquisition’’ means the acquisition of control shares, subject to certain exceptions. |
If voting rights or control shares acquired in a control share acquisition are not approved at a stockholders’ meeting, or if the acquiring person does not deliver an acquiring person statement as required by the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act, then, subject to certain conditions and limitations, the issuer may redeem any or all of the control shares for fair value. If voting rights of such control shares are approved at a stockholders’ meeting and the acquirer becomes entitled to vote a majority of the shares of stock entitled to vote, all other stockholders may exercise appraisal rights. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting acquisitions of our shares from the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act. However, our board of directors may amend our bylaws in the future to repeal or modify this exemption, in which case any control shares of our company acquired in a control share acquisition will be subject to the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act.
| · | Business Combinations. Under Maryland law, ‘‘business combinations’’ between a Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder or an affiliate of an interested stockholder are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. These business combinations include a merger, consolidation, share exchange or, in circumstances specified in the statute, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities. An interested stockholder is defined as: |
| o | any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of the corporation’s shares; or |
| o | an affiliate or associate of the corporation who, at any time within the two-year period before the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the voting power of the then outstanding voting stock of the corporation. |
A person is not an interested stockholder under the statute if the board of directors approved in advance the transaction by which such person otherwise would have become an interested stockholder. However, in approving a transaction, the board of directors may provide that its approval is subject to compliance, at or after the time of approval, with any terms and conditions determined by the board. After the five-year prohibition, any business combination between the Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder generally must be recommended by the board of directors of the corporation and approved by the affirmative vote of at least:
| o | 80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of outstanding shares of voting stock of the corporation; and |
| o | two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of voting stock of the corporation, other than shares held by the interested stockholder with whom or with whose affiliate the business combination is to be effected or held by an affiliate or associate of the interested stockholder. |
These super-majority vote requirements do not apply if the corporation’s common stockholders receive a minimum price, as defined under Maryland law, for their shares in the form of cash or other consideration in the same form as previously paid by the interested stockholder for its shares. The statute permits various exemptions from its provisions, including business combinations that are exempted by the board of directors before the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. Our board of directors has adopted a resolution which provides that any business combination between us and any other person is exempted from the provisions of the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act, provided that the business combination is first approved by the board of directors. This resolution, however, may be altered or repealed in whole or in part at any time. If this resolution is repealed, or the board of directors does not otherwise approve a business combination, this statute may discourage others from trying to acquire control of us and increase the difficulty of consummating any offer.
| · | Staggered board. Our board of directors is divided into three classes of directors. The current terms of the directors expire in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively. Directors of each class are chosen for three-year terms upon the expiration of their current terms, and each year one class of directors is elected by the stockholders. The staggered terms of our directors may reduce the possibility of a tender offer or an attempt at a change in control, even though a tender offer or change in control might be in the best interests of our stockholders. |
| · | Our charter and bylaws contain other possible anti-takeover provisions. Our charter and bylaws contains other provisions that may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us or the removal of existing directors and, as a result, could prevent our stockholders from being paid a premium for their common stock over the then-prevailing market price. |
Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited, which could limit stockholder's recourse in the event of actions not in their best interests.
Our charter limits the liability of our directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages, except for liability resulting from:
| · | actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services; or |
| · | a final judgment based upon a finding of active and deliberate dishonesty by the director or officer that was material to the cause of action adjudicated |
for which Maryland law prohibits such exemption from liability.
In addition, our charter authorizes us to obligate our company to indemnify our present and former directors and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Our bylaws require us to indemnify each present or former director or officer, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, in the defense of any proceeding to which he or she is made, or threatened to be made, a party because of his or her service to us. In addition, we may be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers.
Tax Risks
Your investment has various federal income tax risks.
This summary of certain tax risks is limited to the federal tax risks addressed below. Additional risks or issues may exist that are not addressed in this Form 10-K and that could affect the federal tax treatment of us or our stockholders. This is not intended to be used and cannot be used by any stockholder to avoid penalties that may be imposed on stockholders under the Internal Revenue Code, or the Code. We strongly urge you to seek advice based on your particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor concerning the effects of federal, state and local income tax law on an investment in common stock and on your individual tax situation.
Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forego otherwise attractive opportunities.
To qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy various tests regarding the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. To meet these tests, we may be required to forego investments we might otherwise make. We may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our investment performance.
Complying with REIT requirements may force us to liquidate otherwise attractive investments.
To qualify as a REIT, we generally must ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter at least 75% of the value of our total assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets, including certain mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities and qualifying real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities, qualifying real estate assets, and stock in one or more TRSs) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 25% of the value of our total securities can be represented by securities of one or more TRSs. If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any quarter, we must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of such calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT status and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate from our portfolio otherwise attractive investments. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.
Potential characterization of distributions or gain on sale may be treated as unrelated business taxable income to tax-exempt investors.
If (1) all or a portion of our assets are subject to the rules relating to taxable mortgage pools, (2) we are a ‘‘pension-held REIT,’’ or (3) a tax-exempt stockholder has incurred debt to purchase or hold our common stock, then a portion of the distributions to and, in the case of a stockholder described in clause (3), gains realized on the sale of common stock by such tax-exempt stockholder may be subject to federal income tax as unrelated business taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code.
Classification of a securitization or financing arrangement we enter into as a taxable mortgage pool could subject us or certain of our stockholders to increased taxation.
We intend to structure our securitization and financing arrangements as to not create a taxable mortgage pool. However, if we have borrowings with two or more maturities and, (1) those borrowings are secured by mortgages or mortgage-backed securities and (2) the payments made on the borrowings are related to the payments received on the underlying assets, then the borrowings and the pool of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities to which such borrowings relate may be classified as a taxable mortgage pool under the Internal Revenue Code. If any part of our investments were to be treated as a taxable mortgage pool, then our REIT status would not be impaired, but a portion of the taxable income we recognize may, under regulations to be issued by the Treasury Department, be characterized as ‘‘excess inclusion’’ income and allocated among our stockholders to the extent of and generally in proportion to the distributions we make to each stockholder. Any excess inclusion income would:
| · | not be allowed to be offset by a stockholder’s net operating losses; |
| · | be subject to a tax as unrelated business income if a stockholder were a tax-exempt stockholder; |
| · | be subject to the application of federal income tax withholding at the maximum rate (without reduction for any otherwise applicable income tax treaty) with respect to amounts allocable to foreign stockholders; and |
| · | be taxable (at the highest corporate tax rate) to us, rather than to our stockholders, to the extent the excess inclusion income relates to stock held by disqualified organizations (generally, tax-exempt organizations not subject to tax on unrelated business income, including governmental organizations). |
Failure to qualify as a REIT would subject us to federal income tax, which would reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
We qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ending on December 31, 2007. However, the federal income tax laws governing REITs are extremely complex, and interpretations of the federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. Qualifying as a REIT requires us to meet various tests regarding the nature of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding stock, and the amount of our distributions on an ongoing basis. While we intend to operate so that we will qualify as a REIT, given the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, including the tax treatment of certain investments we may make, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, no assurance can be given that we will so qualify for any particular year. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any calendar year and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be required to pay federal income tax on our taxable income. We might need to borrow money or sell assets to pay that tax. Our payment of income tax would decrease the amount of our income available for distribution to our stockholders. Furthermore, if we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our REIT taxable income to our stockholders. Unless our failure to qualify as a REIT were excused under federal tax laws, we would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification was lost.
Failure to make required distributions would subject us to tax, which would reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
To qualify as a REIT, we must distribute to our stockholders each calendar year at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (excluding certain items of non-cash income in excess of a specified threshold), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. 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 income. In addition, we will incur a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than the sum of:
| · | 85% of our REIT ordinary income for that year; |
| · | 95% of our REIT capital gain net income for that year; and |
| · | any undistributed taxable income from prior years. |
We intend to distribute our REIT taxable income to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the 90% distribution requirement and to avoid both corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax. However, there is no requirement that TRSs distribute their after-tax net income to their parent REIT or their stockholders. Our taxable income may substantially exceed our net income as determined by GAAP, because, for example, realized capital losses will be deducted in determining our GAAP net income, but may not be deductible in computing our taxable income. In addition, we may invest in assets that generate taxable income in excess of economic income or in advance of the corresponding cash flow from the assets. To the extent that we generate such non-cash taxable income in a taxable year, we may incur corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax on that income if we do not distribute such income to stockholders in that year. As a result of the foregoing, we may generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year. In that event, we may be required to use cash reserves, incur debt, or liquidate non-cash assets at rates or at times that we regard as unfavorable to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax in that year. Moreover, our ability to distribute cash may be limited by financing facilities we may enter into.
Ownership limitations may restrict change of control or business combination opportunities in which our stockholders might receive a premium for their shares.
In order for us to qualify as a REIT for each taxable year after 2007, no more than 50% in value of our outstanding capital stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals during the last half of any calendar year. ‘‘Individuals’’ for this purpose include natural persons, private foundations, some employee benefit plans and trusts, and some charitable trusts. To preserve our REIT qualification, our charter generally prohibits any person from directly or indirectly owning more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of any class or series of the outstanding shares of our capital stock. This ownership limitation could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests.
Our ownership of and relationship with any TRS which we may form or acquire will be limited, and a failure to comply with the limits would jeopardize our REIT status and may result in the application of a 100% excise tax.
A REIT may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more TRSs. A TRS may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned directly by the parent REIT. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. Overall, no more than 25% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRSs. A TRS will pay federal, state and local income tax at regular corporate rates on any income that it earns. In addition, the TRS rules impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis. Any TRS that we may form would pay federal, state and local income tax on its taxable income, and its after-tax net income would be available for distribution to us but would not be required to be distributed to us. We anticipate that the aggregate value of the TRS stock and securities owned by us will be less than 25% of the value of our total assets (including the TRS stock and securities). Furthermore, we will monitor the value of our investments in our TRSs to ensure compliance with the rule that no more than 25% of the value of our assets may consist of TRS stock and securities (which is applied at the end of each calendar quarter). In addition, we will scrutinize all of our transactions with taxable REIT subsidiaries to ensure that they are entered into on arm’s-length terms to avoid incurring the 100% excise tax described above. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be able to comply with the 25% limitation discussed above or to avoid application of the 100% excise tax discussed above.
We could fail to qualify as a REIT or we could become subject to a penalty tax if income we recognize from certain investments that are treated or could be treated as equity interests in a foreign corporation exceeds 5% of our gross income in a taxable year.
We may invest in securities, such as subordinated interests in certain CDO offerings, that are treated or could be treated for federal (and applicable state and local) corporate income tax purposes as equity interests in foreign corporations. Categories of income that qualify for the 95% gross income test include dividends, interest and certain other enumerated classes of passive income. Under certain circumstances, the federal income tax rules concerning controlled foreign corporations and passive foreign investment companies require that the owner of an equity interest in a foreign corporation include amounts in income without regard to the owner’s receipt of any distributions from the foreign corporation. Amounts required to be included in income under those rules are technically neither actual dividends nor any of the other enumerated categories of passive income specified in the 95% gross income test. Furthermore, there is no clear precedent with respect to the qualification of such income under the 95% gross income test. Due to this uncertainty, we intend to limit our direct investment in securities that are or could be treated as equity interests in a foreign corporation such that the sum of the amounts we are required to include in income with respect to such securities and other amounts of non-qualifying income do not exceed 5% of our gross income. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in this regard. To avoid any risk of failing the 95% gross income test, we may be required to invest only indirectly, through a domestic TRS, in any securities that are or could be considered to be equity interests in a foreign corporation. This, of course, will result in any income recognized from any such investment to be subject to federal income tax in the hands of the TRS, which may, in turn, reduce our yield on the investment.
Liquidation of our assets may jeopardize our REIT qualification.
To qualify as a REIT, we must comply with requirements regarding our assets and our sources of income. If we are compelled to liquidate our investments to repay obligations to our lenders, we may be unable to comply with these requirements, ultimately jeopardizing our qualification as a REIT, or we may be subject to a 100% tax on any resultant gain if we sell assets in transactions that are considered to be prohibited transactions.
The tax on prohibited transactions will limit our ability to engage in transactions, including certain methods of securitizing mortgage loans that would be treated as sales for federal income tax purposes.
A REIT’s net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property, other than foreclosure property, but including mortgage loans, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to this tax if we sold or securitized our assets in a manner that was treated as a sale for federal income tax purposes. Therefore, to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of assets at the REIT level and may securitize assets only in transactions that are treated as financing transactions and not as sales for tax purposes even though such transactions may not be the optimal execution on a pre-tax basis. We could avoid any prohibited transactions tax concerns by engaging in securitization transactions through a TRS, subject to certain limitations described above. To the extent that we engage in such activities through domestic TRSs, the income associated with such activities will be subject to federal (and applicable state and local) corporate income tax.
Characterization of the repurchase agreements we enter into to finance our investments as sales for tax purposes rather than as secured lending transactions would adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.
We have entered into and will enter into repurchase agreements with a variety of counterparties to achieve our desired amount of leverage for the assets in which we invest. When we enter into a repurchase agreement, we generally sell assets to our counterparty to the agreement and receive cash from the counterparty. The counterparty is obligated to resell the assets back to us at the end of the term of the transaction, which is typically 30 to 90 days. We believe that for federal income tax purposes we will be treated as the owner of the assets that are the subject of repurchase agreements and that the repurchase agreements will be treated as secured lending transactions notwithstanding that such agreement may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could successfully assert that we did not own these assets during the term of the repurchase agreements, in which case we could fail to qualify as a REIT.
Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively.
The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code substantially limit our ability to hedge mortgage-backed securities and related borrowings. Under these provisions, our annual gross income from non-qualifying hedges, together with any other income not generated from qualifying real estate assets, cannot exceed 25% of our annual gross income. In addition, our aggregate gross income from non-qualifying hedges, fees, and certain other non-qualifying sources cannot exceed 5% of our annual gross income. As a result, we might have to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a TRS, which we may form in the future. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear.
We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could reduce the market price of our common stock.
At any time, the federal income tax laws or regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be amended. We cannot predict when or if any new federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective and any such law, regulation or interpretation may take effect retroactively. We and our stockholders could be adversely affected by any such change in, or any new, federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation.
Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates.
Legislation enacted in 2003 generally reduces the maximum tax rate for dividends payable to domestic stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates from 38.6% to 15% (through 2010). Dividends payable by REITs, however, are generally not eligible for the reduced rates. Although this legislation does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in stock of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our common stock.
None.
We do not own any property. Our executive and administrative office is located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2902, New York, New York 10036, telephone (646) 454-3759. We share this office space with Annaly and FIDAC.
We are not party to any material litigation or legal proceedings, or to the best of our knowledge, any threatened litigation or legal proceedings, which, in our opinion, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.
None.
