Ellington Credit Co 10-K

Item 1A. Risk Factors Summary of Risk Factors Risks Related to our CLO Investments and CLO Investment Activities • Our investments in CLO securities, particularly in mezzanine debt and equity tranches, are highly subordinated and exposed to first loss in the capital structure. These tranches are subject to the risk of total or partial write-downs in the event that underlying collateral defaults increase or deal performance deteriorates. CLO equity tranches may experience complete loss of value if coverage tests are breached or excess interest is materially reduced. • CLOs are backed by pools of corporate loans, which are typically below investment grade and may be unsecured or second-lien in nature. Borrowers of these loans are often highly leveraged and more sensitive to rising interest rates, inflation, or recessionary conditions. Defaults, covenant breaches, or restructurings among these borrowers could significantly impair CLO cash flows and valuations, especially in mezzanine and equity tranches. • The CLOs in which we invest may include exposure to middle-market loans, which are generally issued by smaller, less capitalized companies with limited financial flexibility and access to capital markets. These borrowers may be particularly vulnerable to economic downturns or industry-specific stress, and loans to these companies tend to be less liquid and more volatile than broadly syndicated loans. • Many of the loans held in CLO portfolios are covenant-lite, meaning they lack traditional maintenance covenants. This limits the ability of CLO managers and lenders to intervene early when a borrower’s credit quality deteriorates, increasing the risk of sudden or severe losses. • CLO equity and mezzanine debt tranches rely on the generation of excess spread, which may be adversely affected by mismatches in interest rate terms between underlying floating rate assets and liabilities, the presence of interest rate floors, or fixed-rate collateral. Rising rates may also reduce the cushion between CLO tranche coupons and asset yields, compressing returns and impairing equity cash flows. • We are dependent on the collateral managers of the CLOs in which we invest. These managers are unaffiliated with us and may have interests that diverge from ours. CLO documentation often limits our ability to influence or remove a manager, even in cases of underperformance. CLO managers may be incentivized to maximize management fees rather than equity returns, and their investment decisions, including loan selection, trading activity, and reinvestment, may adversely affect deal performance. • CLOs are highly structured and complex vehicles. Each transaction is governed by a series of tests, including overcollateralization and interest coverage thresholds, which, if breached, can redirect cash flows away from the mezzanine and equity tranches to pay more senior classes. CLOs with excess exposure to CCC-rated assets or defaulted loans are at greater risk of breaching these tests, potentially resulting in extended periods of cash flow diversion and impaired valuations. • We generally do not have direct access to the underlying loan obligors, and our rights as CLO debt or equity investors are limited by the governing indentures. In the event of borrower default or CLO liquidation, recoveries may be minimal or nonexistent, particularly for junior tranches. Bankruptcy courts may also disallow or recharacterize CLO claims, further limiting recoveries. • CLO securities are subject to limited liquidity and infrequent trading. Market disruptions or reduced investor demand may impair our ability to sell positions at expected prices, or at all. Valuations for CLO securities can be volatile and may diverge from underlying fundamentals, especially during periods of broader credit market stress. • We may also invest in CLO warehouse facilities, which involve leveraging our capital during the accumulation phase prior to a CLO's issuance. If a CLO is not successfully priced and closed, or if market conditions deteriorate during the warehousing period, we may be forced to absorb losses on accumulated assets or experience significant mark-to-market volatility. • Many of the CLOs in which we invest are domiciled outside of the U.S. or include non-U.S. borrowers, creating potential legal, regulatory, currency, and tax exposure. These CLOs may also be subject to withholding requirements or limitations on enforcement of creditor rights in certain jurisdictions. Risks Related to our Agency RMBS Investments and Agency RMBS Investment Activities • Regulatory changes affecting Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae could materially impact mortgage market liquidity and valuations. Any changes in their government backing, capital requirements, or underwriting guidelines could disrupt the market for Agency RMBS and impact the pricing of our mortgage-related assets. • Prepayment behavior can meaningfully affect the yield and performance of Agency RMBS. Volatility in interest rates, housing turnover, borrower refinancing, and servicing practices can all impact prepayment speeds, potentially resulting in the accelerated amortization of premiums or reduced interest income. • Interest rate mismatches between our fixed-rate assets and variable-rate borrowings, as well as rising interest rates, can compress or even eliminate our net interest margin, reduce asset values, and materially adversely impact our business, financial condition, and ability to pay dividends. • Government actions, including Federal Reserve policy shifts and mortgage loan modification programs, as well as future legislative or regulatory changes, may negatively affect the performance and value of our assets, potentially resulting in lower returns and reduced cash available for dividends. General Risks Related to our Investments and Investment Activities • Due diligence conducted by our Manager may be limited or may fail to uncover all material risks or weaknesses in potential investments, which could result in losses and materially adversely impact our business, financial condition, and ability to pay dividends. • We rely heavily on models and third-party data to evaluate and manage investments. These models incorporate assumptions that may prove to be incorrect, particularly during periods of volatility or when market conditions deviate from historical norms. • Asset valuations are inherently subjective for many of our holdings and may differ materially from observable market prices. Differences in methodology among dealers, pricing services, and internal estimates can result in inconsistent valuations, which directly impact our reported financial results and fee calculations. 16 Risks Related to our Financing, Hedging and Derivative Activities • We use leverage to enhance returns, but this approach increases the magnitude of potential losses during adverse market conditions. Rising interest rates or liquidity constraints could limit our ability to obtain financing on favorable terms, forcing us to sell assets at inopportune times or reduce our investment activity. • Our access to financing depends on the creditworthiness of our collateral and the willingness of lenders to provide credit. Disruptions in capital markets or changes in repo financing terms could restrict our ability to fund investments, subject us to margin calls, or force deleveraging at unfavorable prices. • Hedging strategies, including interest rate swaps and other derivatives, may not fully protect us from market fluctuations. These instruments carry counterparty risk, and regulatory changes could impact their availability, cost, or effectiveness, potentially increasing our exposure to interest rate and credit risk. Other Business Risks • We may change our investment strategy, investment guidelines, hedging strategy, and asset allocation, operational, and management policies at any time without shareholder approval, which could impact our business model and future distributions. • We operate in a competitive market for our targeted assets. Competition for attractive investment opportunities may limit our ability to deploy capital efficiently or generate expected returns. • We rely heavily on Ellington’s and third-party service providers’ information systems, and any cyber-attacks, system failures, or breaches, including those involving AI-generated outputs, could disrupt operations, compromise sensitive data, and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and ability to pay dividends. • A lack of liquidity in our assets, including certain corporate debt, equity investments, and CLOs, could make it difficult to sell holdings, accurately value our portfolio, or secure financing, which may negatively impact our financial condition and ability to pay dividends. Risks Related to our Relationship with our Manager and Ellington • We are dependent on Ellington and its personnel for investment management. The loss of key personnel or termination of our management agreement could materially impact operations and financial performance. • There are potential conflicts of interest inherent in our structure. Our Manager earns fees based on our net assets and performance, which may incentivize greater leverage, increased risk-taking, or asset selection decisions that prioritize near-term income. Our Manager and Ellington may also allocate investment opportunities among multiple clients, and we may not be allocated our desired share of certain assets. • Our Manager and Ellington manage multiple investment accounts, which may create conflicts of interest in allocating investment opportunities and resources. Risks Related to our Common Shares • Our ability to pay dividends depends on our earnings, liquidity, and access to financing. Market conditions, regulatory changes, or investment losses could impair our ability to maintain our current dividend level, or to pay dividends at all. • The assets we acquire may be highly speculative and aggressive and may be subject to a variety of risks, including credit risk, prepayment risk, interest rate risk, and market risk. As a result, an investment in our common shares may not be suitable for investors with lower risk tolerance. Risks Related to our Organization and Structure • We rely on exemptions from the 1940 Act. If we were required to register as an investment company, we would be subject to significant regulatory limitations that could require changes to our structure, leverage, and operations. • Our organizational documents and Maryland law contain provisions that may discourage or prevent takeover attempts or changes in control. These include limits on removal of trustees, authorized blank-check preferred shares, and restrictions under the Rights Agreement designed to protect tax attributes. Risks Related to our Intention to Convert to a Registered Closed-End Fund / RIC ◦ We intend to convert to a registered closed-end investment company and elect to be taxed as a regulated investment company. This conversion is subject to various conditions, including shareholder and regulatory approvals, and may not be completed as planned. Delays or failure to complete the conversion could affect our strategy, tax position, and investor expectations. U.S. Federal Income Tax Risks • We revoked our REIT status effective January 1, 2024, and now operate as a C corporation. If we failed to qualify as a REIT in prior years, we could be subject to additional tax liabilities. We have elected to mark certain securities to market under Section 475(f), which may accelerate taxable income or generate phantom income not matched by cash flows. • We have significant net operating loss carryforwards, but our ability to use them may be limited by changes in ownership under Section 382 of the Code or by the taxable income we generate in future years. Our CLO investments may also create tax liabilities through U.S. trade or business exposure or foreign withholding. General Risk Factors • We may be adversely affected by legal, regulatory, tax, and policy changes, including those related to global trade, systemic financial risk, climate change, or financial markets. We may also face legal proceedings, regulatory inquiries, or other contingent liabilities. • We rely on Ellington's technology infrastructure and third-party vendors. Cybersecurity threats, system outages, and data breaches could disrupt operations, expose us to liability, or damage our reputation. The increasing use of AI and other emerging technologies also introduces new operational and regulatory risks that are difficult to fully anticipate. The above list is not exhaustive, and we face additional challenges and risks. Please carefully consider all of the information in this Report, including the matters set forth below in this Item 1A. 17 If any of the following risks occurs, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us, or not presently deemed material by us, may also impair our operations and performance. In connection with the forward-looking statements that appear in our periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K, our Current Reports on Form 8-K, our press releases and our other written and oral communications, you should also carefully review the cautionary statements referred to in such reports and other communications referred to under "Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements." Risks Related to our CLO Investments and CLO Investment Activities We invest in corporate CLOs, which exposes us to certain risks associated with corporate loans. Investments in corporate CLO securities involve certain risks. Corporate CLOs are securitizations that are typically backed by a pool of corporate loans or similar corporate credit-related assets that serve as collateral. The assets underlying our CLO investments generally consist of lower-rated first-lien corporate loans, although certain CLO structures may also allow for limited exposure to other asset classes including unsecured loans, second-lien loans, or corporate bonds. To the extent that the assets underlying our CLO investments are rated for creditworthiness by any nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations, they generally carry lower credit ratings and certain assets may not be rated by any nationally recognized statistical ratings organization. As a result, the assets underlying our CLO investments are considered to bear significant credit risks. Corporate issuers of lower-rated debt securities may be highly leveraged and may not have access to more traditional methods of financing. During economic downturns or sustained periods of rising interest rates, issuers of lower-rated debt securities may be likely to experience financial stress, especially if such issuers are highly leveraged, and in such periods the market for lower-rated debt securities could be severely disrupted, adversely affecting the value of such securities. The risk of loss for lower-rated debt securities is also magnified to the extent that such securities are unsecured or subordinated to more senior creditors. Lower-rated debt securities generally have limited liquidity and limited secondary market support. These risks are further exacerbated in the case of second-lien loans, as they are subordinated to first-lien loans and have weaker recovery prospects in the event of borrower distress or default. Further, ratings downgrades on our CLO debt investments may result in our investments being viewed as riskier than they were previously thought to be. This perception of increased riskiness resulting from a downgrade can result in adverse impacts to the market value and liquidity of our CLO debt investments, as well as reduce the availability or increase the cost of financing our CLO debt investments. The CLOs in which we invest, may acquire loans to smaller companies, or “middle market” loans, which may carry more inherent risks than loans to larger, publicly traded entities. Compared to larger companies, these middle-market companies tend to have more limited access to capital, weaker financial positions, narrower product lines, and tend to be more vulnerable to competitors’ actions and market conditions, as well as to general economic downturns. As a result, the securities issued by CLOs that hold significant investments in middle-market loans are generally considered riskier than securities issued by CLOs that primarily invest in broadly syndicated loans. The corporate loans that underlie our CLO investments may become nonperforming or impaired for a variety of reasons. Nonperforming or impaired loans may require substantial workout negotiations or restructurings that may result in significant delays in repayment, a significant reduction in the interest rate, and/or a significant write-down of the principal of the loan. A wide range of factors could adversely affect the ability of an underlying corporate borrower to make interest or other payments on its loan. The corporate issuers of the loans or securities underlying our CLO investments may be highly leveraged and may be subject to an increased risk of default depending on certain micro- or macro-economic conditions, such as economic recessions, heightened interest rates and/or inflation, tariffs, and other conditions. The risk of economic recession and declining creditworthiness of corporate borrowers would be amplified by rising corporate default rates, tightening credit conditions, and potential credit downgrades in leveraged loan markets. Accordingly, the subordinated and lower-rated (or unrated) CLO securities in which we invest may experience significant price and performance volatility relative to more senior or higher-rated CLO securities, and they are subject to greater risk of loss than more senior or higher-rated CLO securities which, if realized, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Such defaults and losses, especially those in excess of the market’s or our expectations, would have a negative impact on the value of our CLO investments, and reduce the cash flows that we receive from our CLO investments, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. In addition, if a CLO in which we invest experiences an event of default as a result of the CLO's failure to make a payment when due, the erosion of the CLO's underlying collateral, or other reasons, the CLO would be subject to the possibility of liquidation. In such cases, the risks are heightened that the collateral underlying the CLO may not be able to be readily 18 liquidated, or that when liquidated, the resulting proceeds would be insufficient to redeem in full the CLO mezzanine debt and equity tranches that are the focus of our investment strategy. CLO equity tranches often suffer a loss of all of their value in these circumstances, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Furthermore, following an event of default by a CLO, the holders of CLO mezzanine debt and equity tranches typically have limited rights regarding decisions made with respect to the underlying collateral, with the result that such decisions might favor the more senior tranches of the CLO. In the event of a bankruptcy or insolvency of an issuer of a loan or of an underlying asset held by a CLO in which we invest, a court or other governmental entity may determine that the related claims held by such CLO are not valid, or are subject to significant modification. In addition, any payments previously received by such CLO could be subject to avoidance as a “preference” if made within a certain period of time (which may be as long as one year under U.S. Federal bankruptcy law or even longer under state laws) before insolvency. Further, "covenant-lite" loans may comprise a significant portion of the underlying collateral of the CLOs in which we invest. Generally, covenant-lite loans provide the obligor with more freedom to take actions that could negatively impact their lenders because the obligor's covenants are incurrence-based and not maintenance-based, which means that they are only tested and can only be breached following an affirmative action of the borrower, rather than by a deterioration in the borrower’s financial condition. At times, covenant-lite loans have represented a significant majority of the syndicated corporate loan market. To the extent that the corporate CLO securities in which we invest hold covenant-lite loans, we may have a greater risk of loss on such investments as compared to investments in CLOs holding loans with more robust covenants. The CLOs in which we invest may also acquire interests in corporate loans indirectly, by way of participations. In a participation, the underlying debt obligation remains with the institution that has sold the participation, which typically results in a contractual relationship only with such selling institution, and not with the corporate obligor directly. As a result, the holder of a participation assumes the credit risk of both the obligor and the selling institution, and may only have limited rights to influence any decisions made by the selling institution in connection with the underlying debt obligation. Our CLO investments are subject to risks related to the financial leverage employed by the underlying corporate borrowers. The corporate borrowers of the underlying assets in a CLO are typically highly leveraged, and there may be few or no restrictions on the amount of indebtedness such borrowers can incur. Substantial indebtedness adds additional risk with respect to a borrower and could (i) limit its ability to borrow money or otherwise access funds for its working capital, capital expenditures, debt service requirements, strategic initiatives or other purposes; (ii) require it to dedicate a substantial portion of its cash flow from operations to the repayment of its indebtedness, thereby reducing funds available to it for other purposes; (iii) make it more highly leveraged than some of its competitors, which may place it at a competitive disadvantage; and/or (iv) subject it to restrictive financial and operating covenants, which may preclude it from executing on favorable business activities or from financing future operations or other capital needs. In some cases, proceeds of indebtedness incurred by a borrower could be paid as a dividend to its equity holders rather than retained by the borrowers for its working capital or to pursue favorable opportunities. Highly leveraged companies are often more sensitive to declines in revenues, increases in expenses, and adverse business, political, or financial developments or economic factors such as a significant rise in interest rates, a severe downturn in the economy, or deterioration in the condition of such companies or their industries. A leveraged company’s income and net assets will tend to increase or decrease at a greater rate than if borrowed money were not used. If an underlying borrower is unable to generate sufficient cash flow to meet principal and/or interest payments on its indebtedness, it may be forced to take other actions to satisfy its obligations under its indebtedness. These alternative actions may include reducing or delaying capital expenditures, selling assets, seeking additional capital, or restructuring or refinancing indebtedness. Any of these actions could significantly reduce the value of the related underlying asset held by the CLO, and thus the CLO security we hold. Furthermore, if the borrower is unable to meet its scheduled debt service obligations even after taking these actions, the borrower may be forced into liquidation, dissolution or insolvency, and the value of the related underlying asset held by the CLO, and thus the CLO security we hold, could decline significantly or even be rendered worthless. The CLOs in which we invest may be subject to risks associated with syndicated loans. Under the documentation for syndicated loans, a financial institution or other entity typically is designated as the administrative agent and/or collateral agent. This agent is granted a lien on any collateral on behalf of the other lenders and distributes payments on the indebtedness as they are received. The agent is the party responsible for administering and enforcing the loan and generally may take actions only in accordance with the instructions of a majority or two-thirds in commitments and/or principal amount of the associated indebtedness. In most cases for our syndicated loan investments, we do not expect to hold a sufficient amount of the indebtedness to be able to compel any actions by the agent. Consequently, we would only be able to direct such actions if instructions from us were made in conjunction with other holders of associated 19 indebtedness that together with us compose the requisite percentage of the related indebtedness then entitled to take action. Conversely, if holders of the required amount of the associated indebtedness other than us desire to take certain actions, such actions may be taken even if we did not support such actions. Furthermore, if a syndicated loan is subordinated to one or more senior loans made to the applicable obligor, our ability to exercise such rights may be subordinated to the exercise of such rights by the senior lenders. Whenever we are unable to direct such actions, the parties taking such actions may not have interests that are aligned with us, and the actions taken may not be in our best interests. Furthermore, in recent years, “priming” transactions in the distressed debt sector have become more common. These “priming” arrangements are transactions where a group of debtholders can move collateral away from existing lenders so that it can serve as the primary source of secured assets for new money and/or restructuring existing debt. If we were to hold distressed debt that became “primed” by another group of lenders, we could lose all or a significant part of such investment. If an investment is a syndicated revolving loan or delayed drawdown loan, other lenders may fail to satisfy their full contractual funding commitments for such loan, which could create a breach of contract, result in a lawsuit by the obligor against the lenders and adversely affect the value of our investment. There is a risk that a loan agent may become bankrupt or insolvent. Such an event would delay, and possibly impair, any enforcement actions undertaken by holders of the associated indebtedness, including attempts to realize upon the collateral securing the associated indebtedness and/or direct the agent to take actions against the related obligor or the collateral securing the associated indebtedness and actions to realize on proceeds of payments made by obligors that are in the possession or control of any other financial institution. In addition, we may be unable to remove the agent in circumstances in which removal would be in our best interests. Moreover, agented loans typically allow for the agent to resign with certain advance notice, and we may not find a replacement agent on a timely basis, or at all, in order to protect our investment. Our investments in corporate CLOs involve certain structural risks. Most CLOs are issued in multiple tranches, offering investors various maturity and credit risk characteristics, often categorized as senior, mezzanine and subordinated/equity according to their relative seniority and degree of risk. If the relevant collateral defaults or otherwise underperforms, payments to the more senior tranches of such securitizations take precedence over those of more junior tranches, such as mezzanine debt and equity tranches, which are the focus of our corporate CLO investment strategy. CLOs present risks similar to those of other types of credit investments, including credit, interest rate and prepayment risks. See "—We invest in corporate CLOs, which exposes us to certain risks associated with corporate loans.” Even though we expect that most of our CLO mezzanine debt investments will have floating rate coupons, these and other of our CLO investments are still exposed to interest rate risk. There can be significant mismatches between the timing and frequency of coupon resets on the floating rate CLO debt tranches and the underlying floating rate corporate loans, and furthermore some of the underlying corporate loans may bear fixed coupon rates. When interest rates are low but increasing, variations between interest rate floors on the CLO debt tranches and the underlying corporate loans can reduce the amount of excess interest available for payment to the CLO debt and equity tranches. This reduction in excess interest could adversely impact our CLO equity cashflows and valuations, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. CLOs have at times experienced negative credit events in their constituent loans, credit rating downgrades of constituent loans and issued debt tranches, and failures of certain deal metrics. The failure by a CLO in which we invest to satisfy certain tests, including with respect to adequate collateralization and/or interest coverage, would generally lead to a reduction in the payments made to holders of its mezzanine debt and equity tranches. Our investments in the primary corporate CLO market involve certain additional risks. Between the pricing date and the closing date of a corporate CLO, the collateral manager generally purchases additional assets for the CLO. During this period, the price and availability of these assets may be adversely affected by a number of market factors, including price volatility and availability of investments suitable for the CLO, which could hamper the ability of the collateral manager to acquire a portfolio of assets that will satisfy specified concentration limitations and allow the CLO to reach the target initial principal amount of collateral prior to the effective date. An inability or delay in reaching the target initial principal amount of collateral may adversely affect the timing and amount of payments received by the holders of CLO mezzanine debt securities and equity securities and could result in early redemptions which could cause significant principal losses on the CLO mezzanine debt and equity securities, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. We and our investments are subject to prepayment and reinvestment risk. As part of the ordinary management of its portfolio, a CLO will typically generate cash flow from asset repayments and sales that is reinvested into substitute assets, subject to compliance with its investment tests and certain other conditions. If the 20 CLO collateral manager causes the CLO to purchase substitute assets at a lower yield than those initially acquired, the excess interest-related cash flow available for distribution to the CLO equity tranches would decline. In addition, prepayment rates of the assets underlying a CLO are driven by a number of factors, including changing interest rates and other factors that are beyond our control. Furthermore, in most CLO transactions, CLO debt investors are subject to the risk that the holders of a majority of the equity tranche can direct a call or refinancing of a CLO, causing such CLO’s outstanding CLO debt securities to be repaid at par earlier than expected. This and other factors can cause considerable uncertainty in the average lives of the CLO tranches in which we invest. Our portfolio of corporate CLO investments may lack diversification, which may subject us to a risk of significant loss if one or more of these corporate CLOs experience a high level of defaults on collateral. Because we do not have fixed guidelines for diversification, we do not have any limitations on the ability to invest in any one CLO, and our investments may be concentrated in relatively few CLOs, CLOs that have similar risk profiles (including by being concentrated in a limited number of industries), CLOs where there is an overlap of underlying corporate issuers or CLOs that are managed by the same collateral manager. The overlap of underlying corporate issuers is often more prevalent across CLOs of the same year of origination, as well as across CLOs managed by the same asset manager or collateral manager. To the extent that our CLO investments are more concentrated, we are susceptible to a greater risk of loss if one or more of the CLOs in which we are invested performs poorly, or in the event a CLO collateral manager were to fail, experience the loss of key employees or sell its business. To the extent we invest in CLOs that have a high level of overlap of underlying corporate obligors, there is a greater likelihood of experiencing multiple defaults in our CLO portfolio. In general, to the extent that our CLO portfolio is less diversified, we may have a greater likelihood of experiencing large overall losses, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Failure by a CLO to satisfy certain tests, including as a result of loan defaults and/or negative loan ratings migration, may place pressure on the performance of our investments in such CLO. The failure by a CLO in which we invest to satisfy certain tests, including with respect to adequate collateralization and/or interest coverage, would generally lead to a reduction in the payments made to holders of its mezzanine debt and equity tranches. In a typical corporate CLO, nonperforming assets, or performing assets rated “CCC+” or lower (or their equivalent) in excess of applicable limits, typically do not receive full par credit for purposes of calculation of the CLO’s overcollateralization tests. As a result, if an asset were to default, or an asset’s credit rating were to decrease to a lower credit rating level, also known as "negative rating migration," it could cause a CLO to move out of compliance with some or all of its overcollateralization tests. CLOs are also generally subject to interest coverage tests, under each of which the interest income generated by the underlying assets is compared to the interest owed to a given CLO tranche and all tranches more senior to it. To the extent that any overcollateralization tests or interest coverage tests are breached, cash flows could be diverted away from the CLO mezzanine debt and equity tranches in favor of the more senior CLO debt tranches until and unless such breaches are cured, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. CLO investments involve complex documentation, and complex accounting considerations. CLOs are often governed by a complex series of legal documents and contracts. As a result, the risk of dispute over the interpretation or enforceability of the documentation may be higher relative to other types of investments. Further, the complex structure of a particular security may not be fully understood at the time of investment and may produce disputes with the issuer or unexpected investment results, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. The accounting calculations related to our CLO investments are complex in numerous ways. For instance, under GAAP, we calculate our interest income—which is a component of the calculation used to determine the performance fee payable to our Manager—based on effective yield calculations. These calculations involve significant judgment in projecting expected cash flows. If an investment underperforms expectations, we may accrue more interest income than we ultimately realize on such investment, and pay our Manager a higher performance fee than we otherwise would have if different projections had been used. The risks associated with the accounting complexities include inaccurate financial reporting, such as incorrect accruals, reserves and estimates, or the misapplication of accounting standards. These issues could lead to the miscalculation of fees, potentially in favor of our Manager, and could necessitate a financial restatement. Financial restatements are often costly and time-consuming, and they may lead to regulatory scrutiny, legal proceedings, or shareholder litigation. In addition, a restatement could result in a loss of investor confidence, which would negatively impact our reputation in the marketplace and impair our ability to raise capital on favorable terms in the future. A financial restatement could also trigger a significant decline 21 in the price of our common shares, eroding shareholder value and potentially exacerbating financial and reputational damage. These events could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, as well as our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. We are dependent on the collateral managers of the corporate CLOs in which we invest. We invest in CLO securities issued by CLOs that are managed by collateral managers unaffiliated with us, and we are dependent on the skill and expertise of such managers. While the actions of the CLO collateral managers may significantly affect the return on our investments, we typically do not have any direct contractual relationship with these collateral managers. While we also rely on these collateral managers to act in the best interests of the CLOs in which we invest, there can be no assurance that such collateral managers will do so. Moreover, such collateral managers are subject to fiduciary duties owed to other classes of notes besides those in which we invest, and they may have other incentives to manage the CLO portfolios in a manner that disadvantages the particular classes of notes in which we are invested. Furthermore, since the CLO issuer often provides an indemnity to its collateral manager, the CLO tranches we hold may ultimately bear the burden of any legal claims brought against the collateral manager. We may only have limited information regarding the underlying assets held by the CLOs in which we invest, and collateral managers may not identify or report issues relating to the underlying assets on a timely basis (or at all) to enable us to take appropriate measures to manage our risks. Furthermore, much of the information furnished to us as an investor in a corporate CLO is neither audited nor reviewed, nor is an opinion expressed, by an independent public accountant. Collateral managers are subject to removal or replacement by other holders of CLO securities without our consent and may also voluntarily resign as collateral manager or assign their role as collateral manager to another entity. The removal, replacement, resignation, or assignment of any particular CLO collateral manager’s role could adversely affect the returns on the CLO securities in which we invest, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Our CLO investments often have limited liquidity. We expect to focus our CLO investment activity in mezzanine debt and equity tranches, which have less liquidity than many other securities, including as a result of lower or no trading volume, transfer restrictions, and their bespoke nature. This illiquidity results in price volatility and can make it more difficult to value or sell these securities if the need arises, which could require us to realize a greater loss if we are ever required to liquidate such assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. The CLOs in which we invest incur significant operating expenses. The CLOs in which we invest incur significant operating fees and expenses, including but not limited to collateral management fees, administrative expenses, and other operating expenses, which are all indirectly borne by CLO investors. CLO collateral management base fees, which typically range from 0.30% to 0.50% of a CLO’s total assets, are charged on the CLO's total assets and are usually paid from residual cash flows after interest payments to senior debt tranches. Additional CLO operating expenses, estimated at 0.30% to 0.70%, may also apply, although these are not routinely reported in a standardized manner. Furthermore, CLO collateral managers may also earn incentive fees tied to equity cash flows once the equity tranche achieves a cash-on-cash return of capital and a specified “hurdle” rate. All of these fees and expenses are borne first by the CLO equity tranche due to its subordinated position. Given that the CLO equity tranche represents only a fraction of the value of the entire CLO, these fees and expenses are greatly magnified when expressed as a percentage of the value of the CLO equity tranche. Both types of CLO tranches we invest in (equity tranches and mezzanine debt tranches) bear these expenses, with the equity tranche—being the most subordinated—usually shouldering these costs. To the extent that the CLO equity tranche has suffered or will suffer a total principal loss, mezzanine debt tranches will then effectively bear these fees and expenses. In addition to the collateral management fees, administrative expenses, and other operating expenses accrued in a CLO, we will also remain obligated to pay the Base Management Fee and the Performance Fee to our Manager. Therefore, each shareholder bears his or her share of the Base Management Fee and the Performance Fee of our Manager as well as indirectly bearing the ratable share of the collateral management fees, administrative expenses, and other operating expenses of a CLO. We and our corporate CLO investments are subject to risks associated with non-U.S. investing, including in some cases foreign currency risk. While we invest primarily in CLOs that hold underlying U.S. assets, we may also invest in corporate CLOs that hold non-U.S. assets, and we expect that many of the CLO issuers in which we invest will be domiciled outside the United States. Investing directly or indirectly in non-U.S. issuers may expose us to additional risks, including political and social instability, expropriation, imposition of foreign taxes, less developed bankruptcy laws, difficulty in enforcing contractual obligations, lack 22 of uniform accounting and auditing standards, currency fluctuations and greater price volatility. Further, we, and the CLOs in which we invest, may have difficulty enforcing creditor’s rights in foreign jurisdictions. A portion of our CLO investments (and the income and gains received by us in respect of such investments) may be denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Accordingly, changes in foreign currency exchange rates may materially adversely affect the value of these investments. CLOs in which we invest could become subject to U.S. federal income tax or withholding requirements. The CLO issuers in which we invest will generally operate pursuant to investment guidelines intended to ensure that the CLO is not treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as engaged in a U.S. trade or business. If a CLO issuer fails to comply with the investment guidelines, or if the Internal Revenue Service otherwise successfully asserts that the CLO should be treated as engaged in a U.S. trade or business, such CLO could be subject to U.S. federal income tax, which could reduce the amount available to distribute to mezzanine debt and equity holders in such CLO, including us. The U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act provisions of the Code impose a withholding tax of 30% on certain U.S. source periodic payments, including interest and dividends, to certain non-U.S. entities, including certain non-U.S. financial institutions and investment funds, unless such non-U.S. entity complies with certain reporting requirements regarding its U.S. account holders and its U.S. owners. Most CLOs in which we invest will be treated as non-U.S. financial entities for this purpose, and therefore will be required to comply with these reporting requirements to avoid the 30% withholding. If a CLO in which we invest fails to properly comply with these reporting requirements, certain payments received by such CLO may be subject to the 30% withholding tax, which could reduce the amount available to distribute to equity and mezzanine debt holders in such CLO, including us. We are subject to risks associated with loan accumulation facilities. We may invest capital in CLO warehouse facilities, otherwise known as loan accumulation facilities, or "LAFs." LAFs are generally short- to medium- term financing facilities provided by the investment bank that will ultimately serve as the arranger on a CLO transaction. Utilizing equity capital provided by the LAF investors and debt financing provided by the investment bank, LAFs acquire corporate loans and other similar corporate credit-related assets in anticipation of ultimately collateralizing a CLO transaction. This period of accumulating assets, often known as the "warehouse period," typically terminates when the CLO vehicle issues various tranches of debt and equity securities to the market, using the issuance proceeds to repay the investment bank financing. Investments in LAFs have risks similar to those applicable to investments in CLOs, and the risk of losses is magnified as a result of the leveraged and first-loss nature of these facilities. Further, in the event that the corporate credit assets accumulated by a LAF are not eligible for purchase by the planned CLO, or in the event that the planned CLO is not issued, the LAF investors may be responsible for either holding or disposing of said assets, exposing us to credit and/or mark-to-market risk. This scenario may become more likely in times of economic distress or when the loans comprising the collateral pool of such warehouse, even if still performing, may have declined materially in market value, and we may suffer a loss upon the disposition of these assets. The occurrence of any of the foregoing or similar events could affect our investments in LAFs and, consequently, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. We may invest in corporate loans directly. In addition to gaining exposure to corporate loans through investments in CLO securities, we may also invest in corporate loans directly. In some cases, these loan investments may result from asset sales or in-kind distributions from CLOs in which we have invested, but in other cases we may acquire such loans directly in the open market. To the extent we invest in corporate loans directly, we will be exposed to all of the risks associated with corporate loans that CLOs are exposed to, as described above. See “—We invest in corporate CLOs, which exposes us to certain risks associated with corporate loans.”; “—Our CLO investments are subject to risks related to the financial leverage employed by the underlying corporate borrowers.” and “—The CLOs in which we invest may be subject to risks associated with syndicated loans.” If a CLO in which we invest is treated as engaged in a U.S. trade or business for U.S. federal income tax purposes, such CLO could be subject to U.S. federal income tax on a net basis, which could affect our operating results and cash flows. It is generally expected that the CLOs in which we invest will operate pursuant to investment guidelines intended to avoid such CLOs being treated as engaged in a U.S. trade or business for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If a CLO fails to comply with its investment guidelines, or if the IRS successfully asserts that the CLO should be treated as engaged in a U.S. trade or business for U.S. federal income tax purposes, such CLO could be subject to U.S. federal income tax on a net basis, which could reduce the amount available to distribute to junior debt and equity holders in such CLO, including us. 23 If a CLO in which we invest fails to comply with certain U.S. tax reporting requirements, such CLO may be subject to withholding requirements that could materially and adversely affect its operating results and cash flows. The U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act provisions of the Code (commonly referred to as “FATCA”) impose a withholding tax of 30% on certain U.S. source periodic payments, including interest and dividends, to certain non-U.S. entities, including certain non-U.S. financial institutions and investment funds, unless such non-U.S. entity complies with certain reporting requirements regarding its U.S. account holders and its U.S. owners. Most CLOs in which we invest will be treated as non-U.S. financial entities for this purpose and therefore will be required to comply with these reporting requirements to avoid the 30% withholding. If a CLO in which we invest fails to properly comply with these reporting requirements, certain payments to such CLO may be subject to the 30% withholding tax, which could reduce the amount available to distribute to equity and junior debt holders in such CLO, and therefore materially and adversely affect the market value and/or fair value of the CLO’s securities and our operating results and cash flows. Risks Related to our Agency RMBS Investments and Agency RMBS Investment Activities The federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related efforts, along with any changes in laws and regulations affecting the relationship between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae and the U.S. Government, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. The payments we receive on our Agency RMBS depend upon a steady stream of payments on the underlying mortgages and such payments are guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the Government National Mortgage Association, within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or "Ginnie Mae." Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored enterprises, or "GSEs," but their guarantees are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Ginnie Mae, which guarantees MBS backed by federally insured or guaranteed loans primarily consisting of loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, or "FHA," or guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, or "VA," is part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and its guarantees are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Finally, cash flows from any MSR investments we may make depend on the performance of the underlying loans. In September 2008, in response to the deteriorating financial condition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. Government placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or "FHFA," their federal regulator, pursuant to its powers under The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, a part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Under this conservatorship, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to reduce the amount of mortgage loans they own or for which they provide guarantees on Agency RMBS. In addition to the FHFA becoming the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. Treasury entered into Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements ("PSPAs") with the FHFA and have taken various actions intended to provide Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with additional liquidity in an effort to ensure their financial stability. In January 2025, the FHFA and the U.S. Treasury under the prior administration announced an agreement with each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to modify the PSPAs to help ensure that the eventual release of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from conservatorship will be orderly and reflect certain existing practices. In addition, under a separate side letter from FHFA to the U.S. Treasury, FHFA will solicit public input, before releasing either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac from conservatorship, regarding the potential impacts on the housing market and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed in federal conservatorship, the guarantee payment structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been discussed and re-examined by regulators and administrations. Recent statements made by members of the current administration could introduce significant uncertainty to the housing finance system. These and any future initiatives, which could include efforts to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and end their federal conservatorship, could reduce or eliminate the availability of government guarantees, increase mortgage rates, and lower the value of Agency RMBS. Additionally, proposed leadership changes at the FHFA and shifts in regulatory priorities may further impact the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae, increasing market volatility and credit risk. These developments could materially adversely affect our investments, financing capabilities, and overall financial condition. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae could each be dissolved, and the U.S. Government could determine to stop providing liquidity support of any kind to the mortgage market. If Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae were eliminated, or their structures were to change radically, or if the U.S. Government significantly reduced its support for any or all of them, the value of our currently held Agency RMBS could drop significantly, and we may be unable or significantly limited in our ability to acquire Agency RMBS, which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our ability to maintain our exclusion from the 1940 Act. 24 Moreover, any changes to the nature of the guarantees provided by, or laws affecting, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae could materially adversely affect the credit quality of the guarantees, could increase the risk of loss on purchases of Agency RMBS issued by these GSEs (or MSRs with underlying loans guaranteed by these GSEs) and could have broad adverse market implications for the Agency RMBS they currently guarantee. Any action that affects the credit quality of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae could materially adversely affect the value of our Agency RMBS. In addition, any market uncertainty that arises from such proposed changes could have a similar impact on us and our Agency RMBS. In addition, we rely on our Agency RMBS as collateral for our financings under the repos that we enter into. Any decline in their value, or perceived market uncertainty about their value, would make it more difficult for us to obtain financing on our Agency RMBS on acceptable terms or at all, or to maintain compliance with the terms of any financing transactions. Prepayment rates can change, adversely affecting the performance of our assets. The frequency at which prepayments (including both voluntary prepayments by borrowers and liquidations due to defaults and foreclosures) occur on mortgage loans underlying RMBS or MSRs is affected by a variety of factors, including the prevailing level of interest rates as well as economic, demographic, tax, social, legal, and other factors. Generally, borrowers tend to prepay their mortgages when prevailing mortgage rates fall below the interest rates on their mortgage loans. When borrowers prepay their mortgage loans at rates that are faster or slower than expected, it results in prepayments that are faster or slower than expected on the related RMBS or MSRs. These faster or slower than expected payments may adversely affect our profitability. We may purchase securities or loans that have a higher interest rate than the then-prevailing market interest rate. In exchange for this higher interest rate, we may pay a premium to par value to acquire the security or loan. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, we amortize this premium as an expense over the expected term of the security or loan based on our prepayment assumptions. If a security or loan is prepaid in whole or in part at a faster than expected rate, however, we must expense all or a part of the remaining unamortized portion of the premium that was paid at the time of the purchase, which will adversely affect our profitability. We also may purchase securities or loans that have a lower interest rate than the then-prevailing market interest rate. In exchange for this lower interest rate, we may pay a discount to par value to acquire the security or loan. We accrete this discount as income over the expected term of the security or loan based on our prepayment assumptions. If a security or loan is prepaid at a slower than expected rate, however, we must accrete the remaining portion of the discount at a slower than expected rate. This will extend the expected life of our investment portfolio and result in a lower than expected yield on securities and loans purchased at a discount to par. Prepayment rates generally increase when interest rates fall and decrease when interest rates rise. Since many RMBS, especially fixed rate RMBS, will be discount securities when interest rates are high, and will be premium securities when interest rates are low, these RMBS may be adversely affected by changes in prepayments in any interest rate environment. Prepayment rates are also affected by factors not directly tied to interest rates or home values, and these factors are difficult to predict. Prepayments can also occur when borrowers sell their properties, or when borrowers default on their mortgages and the mortgages are prepaid from the proceeds of a foreclosure sale of the underlying property and/or from the proceeds of a mortgage insurance policy or other guarantee. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will generally, among other conditions, purchase mortgages that are 120 days or more delinquent from the Agency RMBS pools that they have issued when the cost of guaranteed payments to security holders, including advances of interest at the security coupon rate, exceeds the cost of holding the non-performing loans in their portfolios. Consequently, prepayment rates also may be affected by conditions in the housing and financial markets, which may result in increased delinquencies on mortgage loans. Prepayment rates can also be affected by actions of the GSEs and their cost of capital, general economic conditions, and the relative interest rates on fixed and adjustable rate loans. Additionally, changes in the GSEs' decisions as to when to repurchase delinquent loans can materially impact prepayment rates on Agency RMBS. The adverse effects of prepayments may impact us in various ways. First, particular investments may experience outright losses, as in the case of IOs and IIOs in an environment of faster actual or anticipated prepayments. Second, particular investments may underperform relative to any hedges that our Manager may have constructed for these assets, resulting in a loss to us. In particular, prepayments (at par) may limit the potential upside of many RMBS to their principal or par amounts, whereas their corresponding hedges often have the potential for unlimited loss. Furthermore, to the extent that faster prepayment rates are due to lower interest rates, the principal payments received from prepayments will tend to be reinvested in lower-yielding assets, which may reduce our income in the long run. Prepayments also significantly affect the value of MSRs because an MSR entitles the holder to receive a monthly servicing fee equal to a percentage of the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage loans, as well as other cashflows, for so long 25 as the underlying loans are outstanding. To the extent the underlying mortgage loan principal balances are prepaid or expected to be prepaid at a faster rate, the expected future cash flows from servicing would be lower and the value of the related MSR would decline. Actual prepayment rates differing from anticipated prepayment rates could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Interest rate mismatches between our assets and our borrowings may reduce our income during periods of changing interest rates, and increases in interest rates could adversely affect the value of our assets. Some of our assets are fixed rate securities (such as Agency RMBS) or have a fixed rate component. This means that the interest we earn on these assets will not vary over time based upon changes in a short-term interest rate index. We generally fund our targeted assets with borrowings whose interest rates reset frequently, and as a result we have an interest rate mismatch between certain of our assets and liabilities, which could cause our net interest margin (the spread between the average yield on our assets and our average borrowing costs) to compress, or even become negative. While our interest rate hedges are intended to mitigate a portion of this mismatch, the use of interest rate hedges also introduces the risk of other interest rate mismatches and exposures, as will the use of other financing techniques. Additionally, to the extent cash flows from Agency RMBS we hold are reinvested in new Agency RMBS, the spread between the yields of the new Agency RMBS and available borrowing rates may also compress or become negative. If our net interest margin compresses or becomes negative, our business, cash flow, financial condition, results of operations, and ability to pay dividends to our shareholders could be materially affected. In fact, in 2022, 2023 and 2024, which saw periods of rising interest rates, we experienced compressed and in some cases negative net interest margin on many of our assets. Fixed income assets, including many Agency RMBS, typically decline in value if interest rates increase. If long-term rates were to increase significantly, such as we saw during 2022 and parts of 2023 and 2024, not only would the market value of these assets be expected to decline, but these assets could lengthen in duration because borrowers would be less likely to prepay their mortgages. Interest rates can change quickly and are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political considerations, and other factors beyond our control. Moreover, concerns over the United States' debt ceiling and budget-deficit have increased the possibility of downgrades by rating agencies to the U.S. government's credit rating, which could cause interest rates and borrowing costs to rise substantially. Interest rate movements are highly uncertain and notoriously difficult to predict. From February 28, 2022 to October 31, 2023, the lower bound of the Federal Reserve’s Federal Funds Target Rate rose from 0.00% to 5.25%, while the yield on the ten-year U.S. Treasury rose from 1.83% to 4.93%. While we opportunistically hedge our exposure to changes in interest rates, we cannot provide any assurance that our hedges will be successful, or that we will be able to enter into or maintain such hedges. As a result, interest rate fluctuations can cause significant losses, reductions in income, and can limit the cash available to pay dividends to our shareholders. Certain actions by the Federal Reserve could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Actions by the Federal Reserve (and similar actions by other central banks), including tightening or easing of monetary policy, increases or decreases in short-term interest rates, balance sheet liquidations or runoff, or other actions, or the perception that the Federal Reserve or other central banks are failing to take actions deemed necessary or advisable by the market, could cause elevated market volatility and adversely impact the value and performance of our assets and our ability to borrow money at attractive terms or at all, or otherwise access capital to fund our operations. See also "—Increases in interest rates could adversely affect the value of our assets and cause our interest expense to increase, and increase the risk of default on our assets, which could result in reduced earnings or losses and negatively affect our profitability as well as the cash available for distribution to shareholders" for the impact of higher interest rates on our business. Mortgage loan modification programs and future legislative action may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, our targeted assets. The U.S. Government, through the U.S. Treasury, FHA, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or "FDIC," has at various points in time, including in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and may again in the future, implement programs designed to provide homeowners with assistance in avoiding mortgage loan foreclosures. The programs may 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. Loan modification and refinance programs may adversely affect the performance of Agency RMBS. For example, it is likely that loan modifications would result in increased prepayments on some Agency RMBS. See "—Prepayment rates can 26 change, adversely affecting the performance of our assets," for information relating to the impact of prepayments on our business. The U.S. Congress and various state and local legislatures may pass mortgage-related legislation that would affect our business, including legislation that would permit limited assignee liability for certain violations in the mortgage loan origination process, legislation that would allow judicial modification of loan principal in the event of personal bankruptcy, or legislation relating to the handling of escrow accounts. We cannot predict whether or in what form Congress or the various state and local legislatures may enact legislation affecting our business or whether any such legislation will require us to change our practices or make changes in our portfolio in the future. These changes, if required, could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, particularly if we make such changes in response to new or amended laws, regulations or ordinances in any state where we acquire a significant portion of our mortgage loans, or if such changes result in us being held responsible for any violations in the mortgage loan origination process. The existing loan modification programs, together with future legislative or regulatory actions, including possible amendments to the bankruptcy laws, which result in the modification of outstanding residential mortgage loans and/or changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for refinancing mortgage loans with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae, may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, our assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Difficult conditions in the mortgage and residential real estate markets as well as general market concerns may adversely affect the value of the assets in which we invest. Our business is materially affected by conditions in the residential mortgage market, the residential real estate market, the financial markets, and the economy, including inflation, interest rates, energy costs, unemployment, geopolitical issues, tariffs, concerns over the creditworthiness of governments worldwide and the stability of the global banking system. In particular, the residential mortgage market in the U.S. has experienced a variety of difficulties and challenging economic conditions in the past, including defaults, credit losses, and liquidity concerns. Certain commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, loan origination companies and mortgage-related investment vehicles incurred extensive losses from exposure to the residential mortgage market as a result of these difficulties and conditions. These factors have impacted, and may in the future impact, investor perception of the risks associated with Agency RMBS, other real estate-related securities and various other asset classes in which we may invest. As a result, values for Agency RMBS, and various other asset classes in which we may invest have experienced, and may in the future experience, significant volatility. Any deterioration of the mortgage market and investor perception of the risks associated with Agency RMBS, and various other assets that we acquire could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. General Risks Related to our Investments and Investment Activities To the extent that due diligence is conducted on potential assets, such due diligence may not reveal all of the risks associated with such assets and may not reveal other weaknesses in such assets, which could lead to losses. Our Manager may decide to conduct (either directly or using third parties) certain due diligence on an investment before committing to the investment. There can be no assurance that our Manager will conduct any specific level of due diligence, or that, among other things, our Manager's due diligence processes will uncover all relevant facts or that any purchase will be successful, which could result in losses on these assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. We rely on analytical models and other data to analyze potential asset acquisition and disposition opportunities and to manage our portfolio. Such models and other data may be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, which could cause us to purchase assets that do not meet our expectations or to make asset management decisions that are not in line with our strategy. We rely on our Manager and our Manager relies on the analytical models used by Ellington (both proprietary and third-party models) and information and data supplied by third parties. These models and data may be used to value assets or potential asset acquisitions and dispositions and also in connection with our asset management activities. If Ellington's models (including the data utilized by the models) and/or third party models or data prove to be incorrect, misleading, or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon could expose us to potential risks. Our Manager's reliance on the models and data used by Ellington may induce it to purchase certain assets at prices that are too high, to sell certain other assets at prices that are too low, or to miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging activities that are based on faulty models and data may prove to be unsuccessful. 27 Some of the risks of relying on analytical models and third-party data include the following: • 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; • information about assets or the underlying collateral may be incorrect, incomplete, or misleading; • asset, collateral, MBS, or CLO historical performance (such as historical prepayments, defaults, cash flows, etc.) may be incorrectly reported, or subject to interpretation (e.g., different MBS issuers may report delinquency and default statistics based on different definitions of what constitutes a delinquent or defaulted loan); and • asset, collateral, MBS, or CLO 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 models, such as prepayment models or default models, may be predictive in nature. The use of predictive models has inherent risks. For example, such models may incorrectly forecast future behavior, leading to potential losses. In addition, the predictive models used by our Manager may differ substantially from those models used by other market participants, with the result that valuations based on these predictive models may be substantially higher or lower for certain assets than actual market prices. Furthermore, because predictive models are usually constructed based on historical data supplied by third parties, the success of relying on such models may depend heavily on the accuracy and reliability of the supplied historical data, and, in the case of predicting performance in scenarios with little or no historical precedent (such as extreme broad-based declines in home prices, deep economic recessions or depressions), such models must employ greater degrees of extrapolation and are therefore more speculative and of more limited reliability. All valuation models rely on correct market data inputs. If incorrect market data is entered into even a well-founded valuation model, the resulting valuations will be incorrect. However, even if market data is input correctly, "model prices" will often differ substantially from market prices, especially for securities with complex characteristics or whose values are particularly sensitive to various factors. If our market data inputs are incorrect or our model prices differ substantially from market prices, our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders could be materially adversely affected. Valuations of many of our assets are inherently uncertain, may be based on estimates, may fluctuate over short periods of time, and may differ from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these assets existed. The values of many of the assets in our portfolio are not readily determinable with precision. We value the vast majority of our assets monthly at fair value, as determined in good faith by our Manager, subject to the oversight of our Manager's valuation committee. The determination of fair value and, consequently, the amount of unrealized gains and losses in our portfolio, are to a certain degree subjective. Because such valuations are inherently uncertain, may fluctuate over short periods of time, especially during periods of elevated market volatility, and may be based on estimates, our Manager's determinations of fair value may differ from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these assets existed or from the prices at which trades occur. Furthermore, we may not obtain third party valuations for all of our assets. Changes in the fair value of our assets directly impact our net income and book value through recording unrealized appreciation or depreciation of our investments and derivative instruments, and so our Manager's determination of fair value has a material impact on our net income. While in many cases our Manager's determination of the fair value of our assets is based on valuations provided by third-party dealers and pricing services, our Manager can and does value assets based upon its judgment and such valuations may differ from those provided by third-party dealers and pricing services. Valuations of certain assets are often difficult to obtain or are unreliable, and certain of our credit, IO and/or CLO investments may trade infrequently and are illiquid. In general, dealers and pricing services heavily disclaim their valuations. Additionally, dealers and pricing services may claim to furnish valuations only as an accommodation and without special compensation, and so they may disclaim any and all liability for any direct, incidental, or consequential damages arising out of any inaccuracy or incompleteness in valuations, including any act of negligence or breach of any warranty. Depending on the complexity and illiquidity of an asset, valuations of the same asset can vary substantially from one dealer or pricing service to another. Higher valuations of our assets have the effect of increasing the amount of management fees we pay to our Manager. Therefore, conflicts of interest exist because our Manager is involved in the determination of the fair value of our assets. Market-based inputs are generally the preferred source of values for purposes of measuring the fair value of our assets under U.S. GAAP. However, the markets for our investments have experienced, and could in the future experience, extreme volatility, reduced transaction volume and liquidity, and disruption as a result of certain events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the regional banking crisis in 2023, ongoing geopolitical tensions, tariffs, and uncertainty in the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve (and other central banks), which has made, and could in the future make, it more difficult for our Manager, and for third-party dealers and pricing services that we use, to rely on market-based inputs in connection with the valuation of 28 our assets under U.S. GAAP. Furthermore, in determining the fair value of our assets, our Manager uses proprietary models that require the use of a significant amount of judgment and the application of various assumptions including, but not limited to, assumptions concerning future prepayment rates, interest rates, default rates and loss severities. These assumptions may be impacted by the unpredictability of interest rate movements, driven by inflation dynamics and shifting guidance from the Federal Reserve (and other central banks) and these assumptions might be especially difficult to project accurately during periods of economic disruption. The fair value of certain of our investments may fluctuate over short periods of time, and our Manager’s determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these investments existed. Investors purchasing our securities based on an overstated book value per share may pay a higher price than the value of our investments warrants. Conversely, investors selling shares during a period in which our book value per share understates the value of our investments may receive a lower price for their shares than the value of our investments warrants. Our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders could be materially adversely affected if our Manager's fair value determinations of these assets were materially different from the values that would exist if a ready market existed for these assets. Increases in interest rates could adversely affect the value of our assets and cause our interest expense to increase, and increase the risk of default on our assets, which could result in reduced earnings or losses and negatively affect our profitability as well as the cash available for distribution to shareholders. Our operating results will depend in large part on the difference between the income from our assets, net of credit losses, and financing costs. We anticipate that, in many cases, the income from our 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, to the extent not offset by our interest rate hedges, may significantly influence our financial results. Risks Related to our Financing, Hedging, and Derivative Activities We use leverage in executing our business strategy, which may adversely affect the return on our assets and may reduce cash available for distribution to our shareholders, as well as increase losses when economic conditions are unfavorable. We use leverage to finance our investment activities and to enhance our financial returns. Currently, all of our leverage is in the form of short-term repos for our RMBS and CLO assets. Other forms of leverage we may use in the future include credit facilities, including term loans and revolving credit facilities. Through the use of leverage, we may acquire positions with market exposure significantly greater than the amount of capital committed to the transaction. For example, by entering into repos with advance rates of 95%, or haircut levels of 5%, we could theoretically leverage capital allocated to Agency RMBS by an asset-to-equity ratio of as much as 20 to 1. A haircut is the percentage discount that a repo lender applies to the market value of an asset serving as collateral for a repo borrowing, for the purpose of determining whether such repo borrowing is adequately collateralized. Although we may from time to time enter into certain contracts that may limit our leverage, such as certain financing arrangements with lenders, our governing documents do not specifically limit the amount of leverage that we may use. Leverage can enhance our potential returns but can also exacerbate losses. Even if an asset increases in value, if the asset fails to earn a return that equals or exceeds our cost of borrowing, the leverage will diminish our returns. Leverage also increases the risk of our being forced to precipitously liquidate our assets. See "—Our access to financing sources may not be available on favorable terms, may be limited or completely shut off, and our lenders and derivative counterparties may require us to post additional collateral. These circumstances may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders." Our rights under repo agreements are subject to the effects of the bankruptcy laws in the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of us or our lenders. In the event of our insolvency or bankruptcy, certain 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 to avoid the automatic stay provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and to foreclose on and/or liquidate the collateral pledged under such agreements without delay. In the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of a lender during the term of a repo 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 claim. 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 repo agreement or to be compensated for any damages resulting from the lenders' insolvency 29 may be further limited by those statutes. These claims would be subject to significant delay and costs to us and, if and when received, may be substantially less than the damages we actually incur. Our access to financing sources may not be available on favorable terms, or may be limited or completely shut off, and our lenders and derivative counterparties may require us to post additional collateral. These circumstances may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Our ability to fund our operations, meet financial obligations, and finance targeted asset acquisitions may be impacted by an inability to secure and maintain our financing through repurchase agreements or other types of borrowings we may enter into from time to time in the future with our counterparties. Because repurchase agreements are generally short-term transactions, lenders may respond to adverse market conditions in a manner that makes it more difficult for us to renew or replace on a continuous basis our maturing short-term borrowings and have, and may continue to, impose more onerous conditions when rolling such repurchase agreements. Our lenders are primarily large global financial institutions, with exposures both to global financial markets and to more localized conditions. In addition to borrowing from large banks, we borrow from smaller non-bank financial institutions. Whether because of a global or local financial crisis or other circumstances, such as if one or more of our lenders experiences severe financial difficulties, they or other lenders could become unwilling or unable to provide us with financing, could increase the haircut required for such financing, or could increase the costs of that financing. Moreover, we are currently party to short-term borrowings (in the form of repurchase agreements) and there can be no assurance that we will be able to replace these borrowings, or "roll" them, as they mature on a continuous basis and it may be more difficult for us to obtain debt financing on favorable terms, or at all. If we are not able to renew our existing repurchase agreements or other types of borrowings we may enter into from time to time or arrange for new financing on terms acceptable to us, or if we default on our financial covenants, are otherwise unable to access funds under our financing arrangements, or if we are required to post more collateral or face larger haircuts, we may have to dispose of assets at significantly depressed prices and at inopportune times, which could cause significant losses, and may also force us to curtail our asset acquisition activities. Similarly, if we were to move a financing from one counterparty to another that was subject to a larger haircut we would have to repay more cash to the original counterparty than we would be able to borrow from the new counterparty. Any such forced dispositions could materially adversely affect our ability to maintain our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act. In addition, if there is a contraction in the overall availability of financing for our assets, including if the regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders change or our shareholders’ equity decreases to levels that make us a less attractive financing counterparty, our lenders may significantly increase the cost of the financing that they provide to us, increase the amounts of collateral they require as a condition to providing us with financing, or even cease providing us with financing. Our lenders also have revised, and may continue to revise, their eligibility requirements for the types of assets that they are willing to finance or the terms of such financing arrangements, including increased haircuts and requiring additional cash collateral, based on, among other factors, the regulatory environment and their management of actual and perceived risk, particularly with respect to assignee liability. Moreover, the amount of financing that we receive under our financing agreements will be directly related to our lenders’ valuation of the financed assets subject to such agreements. Typically, the master repurchase agreements that govern our borrowings under repurchase agreements grant the lender the right to reevaluate the fair market value of the financed assets subject to such repurchase agreements at any time. If a lender determines that the net decrease in the value of the portfolio of financed assets is greater in magnitude than any applicable threshold, it will generally initiate a margin call. In such cases, a lender's valuations of the financed assets may be different than the values that we ascribe to these assets and may be influenced by recent asset sales at distressed levels by forced sellers. A valid margin call requires us to transfer cash or additional qualifying collateral to a lender or to repay a portion of the outstanding borrowings. If we were to dispute the validity of a margin call from a lender under one of our repo agreements and refuse to deliver margin collateral as a result, a lender could still send us a notice of default. In this situation, such lender will have possession of the financed assets, and might still decide to exercise its contractual remedies, despite the margin dispute. In the event of our default, our lenders or derivative counterparties can accelerate our indebtedness, terminate our derivative contracts (potentially on unfavorable terms requiring additional payments, including additional fees and costs), increase our borrowing rates, liquidate our collateral, and terminate our ability to borrow. In certain cases, a default on one repo agreement or derivative agreement (whether caused by a failure to satisfy margin calls or another event of default) can trigger "cross defaults" on other such agreements. In addition, if the market value of our derivative contracts with a derivative counterparty declines in value, we generally will be subject to a margin call by the derivative counterparty. 30 Significant margin calls and/or increased repo haircuts could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, business, liquidity, and ability to make distributions to our shareholders, and could cause the value of our common shares to decline. During March and April of 2020, we observed that many of our financing agreement counterparties assigned lower valuations to certain of our assets, resulting in us having to pay cash to satisfy margin calls, which were higher than historical levels. In addition, during March and April of 2020 we also experienced an increase in haircuts on repurchase agreements that we rolled. A sufficiently deep and/or rapid increase in margin calls or haircuts would have an adverse impact on our liquidity. Consequently, depending on market conditions at the relevant time, we may have to rely on additional equity issuances to meet our capital and financing needs, which may be dilutive to our shareholders, or we may have to rely on less efficient forms of debt financing that consume a larger portion of our cash flow from operations, thereby reducing funds available for our operations, future business opportunities, cash distributions to our shareholders, and other purposes. There can be no assurance that we will have access to such equity or debt capital on favorable terms (including, without limitation, cost and term) at the desired times, or at all, which may cause us to curtail our asset acquisition activities and/or dispose of assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, or in the worst case, cause our insolvency. Hedging against interest rate changes and other risks could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Subject to maintaining our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act, we may pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in interest rates and, to a lesser extent, credit risk. Our hedging activity is expected to vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, the types of liabilities and assets held and other changing market conditions. 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, or be correlated in the manner desired, with the interest rate risk for which protection is sought; • the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related assets or liabilities being hedged; • many hedges are structured as over-the-counter contracts with counterparties whose creditworthiness is not guaranteed, raising the possibility that the hedging counterparty may default on their obligations; • to the extent that the creditworthiness of a hedging counterparty deteriorates, it may be difficult or impossible to terminate or assign any hedging transactions with such counterparty to another counterparty; • 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 would reduce our earnings and our shareholders' equity; • 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 earnings and our shareholders' equity; • we may fail to correctly assess the degree of correlation between the performance of the instruments used in the hedging strategy and the performance of the assets in the portfolio being hedged; • our Manager may fail to recalculate, re-adjust, and execute hedges in an efficient and timely manner; and • the hedging transactions may actually result in poorer overall performance for us than if we had not engaged in the hedging transactions. Although we do not intend to operate our non-Agency RMBS investment strategy on a credit-hedged basis in general, we may from time to time opportunistically enter into short positions using credit default swaps to protect against adverse credit events with respect to our non-Agency RMBS, provided that our ability to do so may be limited in order to maintain our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act. For these and other reasons, our hedging activity could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, and our ability to maintain our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act. 31 Hedging instruments and other derivatives, including some credit default swaps, may not, in many cases, be traded on exchanges, or may not be guaranteed or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authority and involve risks and costs that could result in material losses. Hedging instruments and other derivatives, including certain types of credit default swaps, involve risk because they may not, in many cases, be traded on exchanges or cleared on a CCP (as defined below) and may not be guaranteed or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, for these instruments there may be less stringent requirements with respect to record keeping and compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. Our Manager is not restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of its transactions with one counterparty. Furthermore, our Manager has only a limited internal credit function to evaluate the creditworthiness of its counterparties, mainly relying on its experience with such counterparties and/or their general reputation as participants in these markets. Under the terms of many of our derivative transaction contracts, the business failure of a derivative counterparty with whom we enter into a derivative transaction will most likely result in a default under the governing arrangement. Default by a party with whom we enter into a derivative transaction may result in losses and may force us to re-initiate similar derivative transactions with other counterparties at the then-prevailing market levels. Generally, we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our derivative transactions upon a counterparty's insolvency, but absent an actual insolvency, we may not be able to terminate a derivative transaction without the consent of the counterparty, and we may not be able to assign or otherwise dispose of a derivative transaction to another counterparty without the consent of both the original derivative counterparty and the potential assignee. If we terminate a derivative transaction, we may not be able to enter into a replacement contract in order to cover our risk. There can be no assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist for derivative instruments purchased or sold, and therefore we may be required to maintain any derivative positions until exercise or expiration, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. In this regard, we may be required to hold additional cash or sell other investments in order to obtain cash to close out derivatives to meet the liquidity demands that derivatives can create to make payments of margin, collateral or settlement payments to counterparties. We may have to sell an investment at a disadvantageous time or price to meet such obligations. In addition, some portion of our derivatives, including our future positions, are cleared through a central counterparty clearinghouse, or "CCP," which we access through a futures commission merchant, or "FCM." If an FCM that holds our cleared derivatives account were to become insolvent, the CCP will make an effort to move our futures and swap positions to an alternate FCM, though it is possible that no alternate FCM could be found to accept our positions, which could result in a total cancellation of our positions in the account; in such a case, if we wished to reinstate such derivative positions, we would have to re-initiate such positions with an alternate FCM. In the event of the insolvency of an FCM that holds our cleared over-the-counter derivatives, the rules of the CCP require that its direct members submit bids to take over the portfolio of the FCM, and would further require the CCP to move our existing positions and related margin to an alternate FCM. If this were to occur, we believe that our risk of loss would be limited to the excess equity in the account at the insolvent FCM due to the "legally segregated, operationally commingled" treatment of client assets under the rules governing FCMs in respect of cleared over-the-counter derivatives. In addition, in the case of both futures and cleared over-the-counter derivatives, there could be knock-on effects of our FCM's insolvency, such as the failure of co-customers of the FCM or other FCMs of the same CCP. In such cases, there could be a shortfall in the funds available to the CCP due to such additional insolvencies and/or exhaustion of the CCP's guaranty fund that could lead to total loss of our positions in the FCM account. Finally, we face a risk of loss (including total cancellation) of positions in the account in the event of fraud by our FCM or other FCMs of the CCP, where ordinary course remedies would not apply. Using derivatives is also subject to operational and legal risks. Operational risk generally refers to risk related to potential operational issues, including documentation issues, settlement issues, systems failures, inadequate controls, and human error. Legal risk generally refers to insufficient documentation, insufficient capacity or authority of counterparty, or the legality or enforceability of a contract. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or "CFTC," and certain commodity exchanges have established limits referred to as speculative position limits or position limits on the maximum net long or net short position which any person or group of persons may hold or control in particular futures and options. Limits on trading in options contracts also have been established by the various options exchanges. It is possible that trading decisions may have to be modified and that positions held may have to be liquidated in order to avoid exceeding such limits. Such modification or liquidation, if required, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. 32 Our use of derivatives may expose us to counterparty risk. We have entered into derivative transactions that have not been cleared by a CCP. If a derivative counterparty cannot perform under the terms of the derivative contract, we would not receive payments due under that agreement, we may lose any unrealized gain associated with the derivative, and in the case of a derivative used as a hedging instrument, the asset or liability being hedged would cease to be hedged by such instrument. If a derivative counterparty becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy, we may also be at risk for any collateral we have pledged to such counterparty to secure our obligations under derivative contracts, and we may incur significant costs in attempting to recover such collateral. We engage in short selling transactions, which may subject us to additional risks. Certain of our hedging transactions, and occasionally our investment transactions, may be short sales or short positions. Short selling may involve selling securities that are not owned and typically borrowing the same securities for delivery to the purchaser, with an obligation to repurchase the borrowed securities at a later date. Short selling allows the investor to profit from declines in market prices to the extent such declines exceed the transaction costs and the costs of borrowing the securities. A short sale may create the risk of an unlimited loss, in that the price of the underlying security might theoretically increase without limit, thus increasing the cost of repurchasing the securities. There can be no assurance that securities sold short will be available for repurchase or borrowing. Market conditions, including lower liquidity in certain asset classes and derivatives, and increased short sale restrictions imposed by regulators during periods of financial stress, could limit our ability to execute or maintain short positions effectively. Repurchasing securities to close out a short position can itself cause the price of the securities to rise further, thereby exacerbating the loss, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Our investments that are denominated in foreign currencies, domiciled outside the U.S., or that involve non-U.S. assets are subject to risks associated with non-U.S. investing, including in some cases foreign currency risk, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Our investments that are denominated in foreign currencies subject us to foreign currency risk arising from fluctuations in exchange rates between such foreign currencies and the U.S. dollar. While we currently attempt to hedge the vast majority of our foreign currency exposure, we may not always choose to hedge such exposure, or we may not be able to hedge such exposure. To the extent that we are exposed to foreign currency risk, changes in exchange rates of such foreign currencies to the U.S. dollar could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Further, we also invest in CLOs that hold non-U.S. assets, and we expect that many of the CLO issuers in which we invest will be domiciled outside the United States. Investing directly or indirectly in non-U.S. issuers may expose us to additional risks, including political and social instability, expropriation, imposition of foreign taxes, less developed bankruptcy laws, difficulty in enforcing contractual obligations, lack of uniform accounting and auditing standards, currency fluctuations and greater price volatility. Further, we, and the CLOs in which we invest, may have difficulty enforcing creditor’s rights in foreign jurisdictions. Other Business Risks We may change our investment strategy, investment guidelines, hedging strategy, and asset allocation, operational, and management policies without notice or shareholder consent, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. We may change our investment strategy, investment guidelines, hedging strategy, and asset allocation, operational, and management policies at any time without notice to or consent from our shareholders. As a result, the types or mix of assets, liabilities, or hedging transactions in our portfolio may be different from, and possibly riskier than, the types or mix of assets, liabilities, and hedging transactions that we have historically held, or that are otherwise described in this report. A change in our strategy may increase our exposure to real estate values, interest rates, and other factors. Our Board of Trustees determines our investment guidelines and our operational policies, and may amend or revise our policies, including those with respect to our acquisitions, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization, and dividends or approve transactions that deviate from these policies without a vote of, or notice to, our shareholders. For example, our declaration of trust provided our Board of Trustees the ability to authorize us to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our shareholders, if it determined that it was no longer in our best interests to qualify as a REIT. Our Board of Trustees made that determination and revoked our election to be taxed as a REIT, effective January 1, 2024, and we began investing in corporate CLOs with the approval of our Board of Trustees and without any notice 33 or consent from our shareholders. These (and similar) changes could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Any such change may increase our exposure to the risks described herein or expose us to new risks that are not currently contemplated. We operate in a highly competitive market. Our profitability depends, in large part, on our ability to acquire targeted assets at favorable prices. We compete with a number of entities when acquiring our targeted assets, including financial companies, public and private funds, commercial and investment banks and residential and commercial finance companies. We may also compete with (i) the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury to the extent they purchase assets in our targeted asset classes and (ii) companies that partner with and/or receive financing from the U.S. Government or consumer bank deposits. Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably more favorable access to capital and other resources than we do. Furthermore, new companies with significant amounts of capital have been formed or have raised additional capital, and may continue to be formed and raise additional capital in the future, and these companies may have objectives that overlap with ours, which may create competition for assets we wish to acquire. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources, such as government funding, that are not available to us. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of assets to acquire or pay higher prices than we can. We also may have different operating constraints from those of our competitors including, among others, (i) tax-, legal- or accounting-driven constraints, (ii) restraints imposed on us by our attempt to comply with certain exclusions from the definition of an "investment company" or other exemptions under the 1940 Act and (iii) restraints and additional costs arising from our status as a public company. Furthermore, competition for assets in our targeted asset classes may lead to the price of such assets increasing, which may further limit our ability to generate desired returns. The competitive pressures we face could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. An increase in interest rates may cause a decrease in the issuance volumes of certain of our targeted assets, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire targeted assets that satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and pay dividends. Rising interest rates generally reduce the demand for mortgage loans due to the higher cost of borrowing. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans originated may affect the volume of targeted assets available to us, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives. If rising interest rates cause us to be unable to acquire a sufficient volume of our targeted assets with a yield that is above our borrowing cost, our ability to satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and pay dividends to our shareholders may be materially and adversely affected. Lack of diversification in the number or types of assets we acquire would increase our dependence on relatively few individual assets or asset types. Our management objectives and policies do not place a limit on the amount of capital used to support, or the exposure to (by any other measure), any individual asset or any group of assets with similar characteristics or risks. As a result, our portfolio may be concentrated in a small number of assets or may be otherwise undiversified, increasing the risk of loss and the magnitude of potential losses to us and our shareholders if one or more of these assets perform poorly. We are highly dependent on Ellington's information systems and those of third-party service providers, and system failures could significantly disrupt our business, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Our business is highly dependent on Ellington's communications and information systems and those of third-party service providers. Any failure or interruption of Ellington's or certain third-party service providers' systems or cyber-attacks or security breaches of their networks or systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities, could allow unauthorized access for purposes of misappropriating assets, stealing proprietary and confidential information, corrupting data or causing operational disruption, or could prevent us from receiving distributions to which we are entitled, any of which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Computer malware, ransomware, viruses, and computer hacking and phishing attacks have become more prevalent in the financial services industry and may occur on Ellington's or certain third party service providers' systems in the future. We rely heavily on Ellington's financial, accounting and other data processing systems. Financial services institutions have reported breaches of their systems, some of which have been significant, and Ellington has experienced a data breach, which was not material to its or our operations. Even with all reasonable security efforts, not every breach can be prevented or even detected. It is possible that Ellington or certain third-party service providers have experienced an undetected breach, and it is likely that other financial institutions have experienced more breaches than have been detected and reported. There is no assurance that we, Ellington, or certain of the third parties that facilitate our and Ellington's business activities, have not or will not experience 34 a breach. It is difficult to determine what, if any, negative impact may directly result from any specific interruption or cyber-attacks or security breaches of Ellington's networks or systems (or the networks or systems of certain third parties that facilitate our and Ellington's business activities) or any failure to maintain performance, reliability and security of Ellington's or certain third-party service providers' technical infrastructure, but such computer malware, ransomware, viruses, and computer hacking and phishing attacks could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Additionally, operational failures or cyber incidents relating to our third-party service providers (or their service providers) may negatively impact our business in the future. The number and complexity of cyber-attacks continue to increase over time. While we collaborate with third-party service providers to develop secure transmission capabilities and protect against operational failures and cyber-attacks, we and those third parties may not have all appropriate controls in place to protect from such failures or attacks. If a material operational failure or material breach of the information technology systems of our third-party service providers occurs, we could be required to expend significant amounts of money, be delayed in receiving funds (or not receive them at all) or have to expend significant time and resources to respond to these threats or breaches, each of which could materially adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. New technologies also continue to develop, including tools that harness generative artificial intelligence and other machine learning techniques (collectively, “AI”). AI is developing at a rapid pace and becoming more accessible. As a result, the use of such new technologies by us, Ellington, and/or our third-party service providers can present additional known and unknown risks, including, among others, the risk that confidential information may be stolen, misappropriated or disclosed and the risk that we, Ellington, and/or our third-party service providers may rely on incorrect, unclear or biased outputs generated by such technologies, any of which could have an adverse impact on us and our business. See “—Artificial intelligence and other machine learning techniques could increase competitive, operational, legal and regulatory risks to our business in ways that we cannot predict.” The lack of liquidity in our assets may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. Certain of the assets and other instruments we acquire are not publicly traded, including certain corporate debt and equity investments. As such, these assets may be subject to legal and other restrictions on resale, transfer, pledge or other disposition, or will otherwise be less liquid than publicly-traded securities. Other assets that we acquire, while publicly traded, may have limited liquidity on account of their complexity, turbulent market conditions, or other factors. In addition, CLOs from time to time have experienced extended periods of illiquidity, including during times of financial stress (such as during the COVID-19 pandemic), which is often the time that liquidity is most needed. Illiquid assets typically experience greater price volatility, because a ready market does not exist, and they can be more difficult to value or sell if the need 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 assets. We may also face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate any assets for which we or our Manager has or could be attributed with material non-public information. Furthermore, assets that are illiquid are more difficult to finance, and to the extent that we finance assets that are or become illiquid, we may lose that financing or have it reduced. If we are unable to sell our assets at favorable prices or at all, it could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. ' Our ability to pay dividends will depend on our operating results, our financial condition and other factors, and we may not be able to pay dividends at a fixed rate or at all under certain circumstances. Our ability to pay dividends will depend on our earnings, our financial condition and such other factors as our Board of Trustees may deem relevant from time to time. We will declare and pay dividends only to the extent approved by our Board of Trustees. Risks Related to our Relationship with our Manager and Ellington We are dependent on our Manager and certain key personnel of Ellington that are provided to us through our Manager and may not find a suitable replacement if our Manager terminates the management agreement or such key personnel are no longer available to us. We do not have any employees of our own. Our officers are employees of Ellington or one or more of its affiliates. We have no separate facilities and are completely reliant on our Manager, which has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and execution of our business strategies and risk management practices. We also depend on our Manager's access to the professionals of Ellington as well as information and deal flow generated by Ellington. The employees of Ellington identify, evaluate, negotiate, structure, close, and monitor our portfolio. The departure of any of the senior officers of our Manager, or of a significant number of investment professionals of Ellington or the inability of such personnel to 35 perform their duties due to acts of God, pandemics such as the COVID-19 pandemic, war or other geopolitical conflict, terrorism, elevated inflation, high energy costs, social unrest, or civil disturbances, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to achieve our objectives. We can offer no assurance that our Manager will remain our manager or that we will continue to have access to our Manager's senior management. We are subject to the risk that our Manager will terminate the management agreement or that we may deem it necessary to terminate the management agreement or prevent certain individuals from performing services for us and that no suitable replacement will be found to manage us. There are risks and conflicts of interest associated with the base management fee we are obligated to pay our Manager. We pay our Manager substantial base management fees based on our net asset value (as defined in the management agreement) regardless of the performance of our portfolio. The base management fee takes into account the net issuance proceeds of both common and preferred share offerings. Our Manager's entitlement to non-performance-based compensation might reduce its incentive to devote the time and effort of its professionals to seeking profitable opportunities for our portfolio, which could result in a lower performance of our portfolio and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. There are risks and conflicts of interests associated with the Performance Fee we are obligated to pay our Manager. In addition to its Base Management Fee, our Manager is entitled to receive the Performance Fee based, in large part, upon our achievement of targeted levels of Pre-Performance Fee Net Investment Income. The Performance Fee payable to our Manager is based on our Pre-Performance Fee Net Investment Income, without considering any realized or unrealized gains or losses on our investments. As a result, (i) for quarters in which a Performance Fee is payable, such Performance Fee will exceed 17.5% of our GAAP net income if we generated net realized and unrealized losses on our investments during such quarter, (ii) our Manager could earn a Performance Fee for fiscal quarters during which we generate a GAAP net loss, and (iii) our Manager might be incentivized to manage our portfolio using higher risk assets, using assets with deferred interest features, or using more financial leverage through indebtedness, to generate more income than would be the case if there were no Performance Fee, both of which could result in higher investment losses, especially during economic downturns. The Performance Fee is calculated quarterly, treating each quarter in isolation. As a result, the Hurdle Amount does not accumulate from quarter to quarter, and decreases in our Net Asset Value of Common Equity, such as those due to unrealized losses, will reduce the Hurdle Amount, potentially making it easier for our Manager to earn a Performance Fee. We will not have the ability to claw back, delay, or adjust the payment of any Performance Fee based on financial results in prior or subsequent quarters. In addition, over a series of quarters, if our Pre-Performance Fee Net Investment Income is positive in some quarters but negative in others, it is likely, when viewing the series of quarters as a whole, for the aggregate Performance Fee payable to our Manager to exceed 17.5% of our aggregate Pre-Performance Fee Net Investment Income. There is also a conflict of interest related to management's involvement in many accounting determinations (including but not limited to valuations and calculations of interest income) that can affect our Performance Fee. Finally, because the Hurdle Rate does not float with overall interest rates, an increase in interest rates will likely make it easier for Pre-Performance Fee Net Investment Income to exceed the Hurdle Amount. The Performance Fee Catch-Up feature (which provides that if the Company’s Pre-Performance Fee Net Investment Income for a quarter exceeds the Hurdle Amount for such quarter but is less than or equal to 121.21% of the Hurdle Amount, then 100% of the portion of the Company’s Pre-Performance Fee Net Investment Income that exceeds the Hurdle Amount is payable to the Manager with respect to such quarter) may also cause our Manager to capture a disproportionate share of any increase in our investment income resulting from higher interest rates. Our Board of Trustees has approved very broad investment guidelines for our Manager and will not approve the decisions made by our Manager to acquire, dispose of, or otherwise manage an asset. Our Manager is authorized to follow very broad guidelines in pursuing our strategy. While our Board of Trustees periodically reviews our guidelines and our portfolio and asset-management decisions, including our decision to begin making CLO investments, it generally does not review our proposed acquisitions, dispositions, and other management decisions. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, our Board of Trustees relies primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Furthermore, our Manager may arrange for us to use complex strategies or to enter into complex transactions that may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our Board of Trustees. Our Manager has great latitude within the broad guidelines in determining the types of assets it may decide are proper for us to acquire and other decisions with respect to the management of those assets subject to our maintaining exemption from the 1940 Act. Poor decisions could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. 36 We compete with Ellington's other accounts for access to Ellington and for opportunities to acquire assets. Ellington has sponsored and/or currently manages accounts with a focus that overlaps with our investment focus, and expects to continue to do so in the future. Ellington is not restricted in any way from sponsoring or accepting capital from new accounts, even for investing in asset classes or strategies that are similar to, or overlapping with, our asset classes or strategies. Therefore, we compete for access to the benefits that our relationship with our Manager and Ellington provides us. For the same reasons, the personnel of Ellington and our Manager may be unable to dedicate a substantial portion of their time to managing our assets. Further, to the extent that our targeted assets are also targeted assets of other Ellington accounts, we will compete with those accounts for opportunities to acquire assets. Ellington has no duty to allocate such opportunities in a manner that preferentially favors us. Ellington makes available to us all opportunities to acquire assets that it determines, in its reasonable and good faith judgment, based on our objectives, policies and strategies, and other relevant factors, are appropriate for us in accordance with Ellington's written investment allocation policy, it being understood that we might not participate in each such opportunity, but will equitably participate with Ellington's other accounts in such opportunities on an overall basis. Since many of our targeted assets are typically available only in specified quantities and are also targeted assets for other Ellington accounts, Ellington often is not able to buy as much of any asset or group of assets as would be required to satisfy the needs of all of Ellington's accounts. In these cases, Ellington's investment allocation procedures and policies typically allocate such assets to multiple accounts in proportion to their needs and available capital. As part of these policies, accounts that are in a "start-up" or "ramp-up" phase may get allocations above their proportion of available capital, which could work to our disadvantage, particularly because there are no limitations surrounding Ellington's ability to create new accounts. In addition, the policies permit departure from proportional allocations under certain circumstances, including, for example when such allocation would result in an inefficiently small amount of the security or assets being purchased for an account, which may also result in our not participating in certain allocations. In addition, as part of these policies, we may be excluded from specified allocations of assets for tax, regulatory, risk management, or similar reasons. There are conflicts of interest in our relationships with our Manager and Ellington, which could result in decisions that are not in the best interests of our shareholders. We are subject to conflicts of interest arising out of our relationship with Ellington and our Manager. Currently, all of our executive officers, and two of our trustees, are employees of Ellington or one or more of its affiliates. As a result, our Manager and our officers may have conflicts between their duties to us and their duties to, and interests in, Ellington or our Manager. For example, Mr. Penn, our President and Chief Executive Officer and one of our trustees, also serves as the President and Chief Executive Officer of, and as a member of the Board of Directors of, Ellington Financial Inc., and Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of Ellington. Mr. Vranos, our Co-Chief Investment Officer and one of our trustees, also serves as the Co-Chief Investment Officer of Ellington Financial Inc., and Chairman of Ellington. Mr. Tecotzky, our Co-Chief Investment Officer, also serves as the Co-Chief Investment Officer of Ellington Financial Inc., and as Vice Chairman - Co-Head of Credit Strategies of Ellington. Mr. Smernoff, our Chief Financial Officer, also serves as the Chief Accounting Officer of Ellington Financial Inc. Mr. Herlihy, our Chief Operating Officer, also serves as the Chief Financial Officer of Ellington Financial Inc., and as a Managing Director of Ellington. We may acquire or sell assets in which Ellington or its affiliates have or may have an interest. Similarly, Ellington or its affiliates may acquire or sell assets in which we have or may have an interest. Although such acquisitions or dispositions may present conflicts of interest, we nonetheless may pursue and consummate such transactions. Additionally, we may engage in transactions directly with Ellington or its affiliates, including the purchase and sale of all or a portion of a portfolio asset. Acquisitions made for entities with similar objectives may be different from those made on our behalf. Ellington may have economic interests in, or other relationships with, others in whose obligations or securities we may acquire. In particular, such persons may make and/or hold an investment in securities that we acquire that may be pari passu, senior, or junior in ranking to our interest in the securities or in which partners, security holders, officers, directors, agents, or employees of such persons serve on boards of directors or otherwise have ongoing relationships. Each of such ownership and other relationships may result in securities laws restrictions on transactions in such securities and otherwise create conflicts of interest. In such instances, Ellington may, in its sole discretion, make recommendations and decisions regarding such securities for other entities that may be the same as or different from those made with respect to such securities and may take actions (or omit to take actions) in the context of these other economic interests or relationships the consequences of which may be adverse to our interests. In deciding whether to issue additional debt or equity securities, we will rely in part on recommendations made by our Manager. While such decisions are subject to the approval of our Board of Trustees, two of our trustees are also Ellington employees. Because our Manager earns management fees that are based in part on the total amount of our equity capital, our 37 Manager may have an incentive to recommend that we issue additional equity securities. See below for further discussion of the adverse impact future debt or equity offerings could have on our common shares. Future offerings of debt securities, which would rank senior to our common shares upon liquidation, and future offerings of equity securities which would dilute the common share holdings of our existing shareholders and may be senior to our common shares for the purposes of dividend and liquidating distributions, may adversely affect the market price of our common shares. The officers of our Manager and its affiliates devote as much time to us as our Manager deems appropriate; however, these officers may have conflicts in allocating their time and services among us and Ellington and its affiliates' accounts. During turbulent conditions in the mortgage industry, distress in the credit markets or other times when we will need focused support and assistance from our Manager and Ellington employees, other entities that Ellington advises or manages will likewise require greater focus and attention, placing our Manager and Ellington's resources in high demand. In such situations, we may not receive the necessary support and assistance we require or would otherwise receive if we were internally managed or if Ellington or its affiliates did not act as a manager for other entities. We, directly or through Ellington, may obtain confidential information about the companies or securities in which we have invested or may invest. If we do possess confidential information about such companies or securities, there may be restrictions on our ability to dispose of, increase the amount of, or otherwise take action with respect to the securities of such companies. Our Manager's and Ellington's management of other accounts could create a conflict of interest to the extent our Manager or Ellington is aware of material non-public information concerning potential investment decisions. For example, an affiliate of Ellington could participate in a loan syndicate or on a loan borrower's creditors' committee, thereby becoming privy to material non-public information, and potentially precluding our Manager from entering into a transaction involving a CLO that holds the related loan. We have implemented compliance procedures and practices designed to ensure that investment decisions are not made while in possession of material non-public information. However, there can be no assurance that these procedures and practices will be effective. In addition, this conflict and these procedures and practices may limit the freedom of our Manager to make potentially profitable investments, which could have an adverse effect on our operations. These limitations imposed by access to confidential information could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. The management agreement with our Manager was not negotiated on an arm's-length basis and may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party and may be costly and difficult to terminate. Our management agreement with our Manager was negotiated between related parties, and its terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party. Various potential and actual conflicts of interest may arise from the activities of Ellington and its affiliates by virtue of the fact that our Manager is controlled by Ellington. Termination of our management agreement without cause, including termination for poor performance or non-renewal, is subject to several conditions which may make such a termination difficult and costly. T he management agreement has a current term that expires on June 25, 2025, and will be automatically renewed for successive one-year terms thereafter unless notice of non-renewal is delivered by either party to the other party at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the then current term. The management agreement provides that it may be terminated by us based on performance upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our Board of Trustees, or by a vote of the holders of at least a majority of our outstanding common shares, based either upon unsatisfactory performance by our Manager that is materially detrimental to us or upon a determination by our independent trustees that the management fees payable to our Manager are not fair, subject to our Manager's right to prevent such a fee-based termination by accepting a mutually acceptable reduction of management fees. In the event we terminate the management agreement as discussed above or elect not to renew the management agreement, we will be required to pay our Manager a termination fee equal to 5% of our net asset value as of the month-end preceding the date of the notice of termination or non-renewal. These provisions will increase the effective cost to us of terminating the management agreement, thereby adversely affecting our ability to terminate our Manager without cause. Pursuant to the management agreement, our Manager will not assume any responsibility other than to render the services called for thereunder and will not be responsible for any action of our Board of Trustees in following or declining to follow our Manager's advice or recommendations. Under the terms of the management agreement, our Manager, Ellington, and their affiliates and each of their officers, directors, trustees, members, shareholders, partners, managers, investment and risk management committee members, employees, agents, successors and assigns, will not be liable to us for acts or omissions performed in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement, except because of acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, fraud or reckless disregard of their duties under the management agreement. In addition, we will indemnify our Manager, Ellington, and their affiliates and each of their officers, directors, trustees, members, shareholders, partners, managers, investment and risk management committee members, employees, agents, successors and assigns, with respect to all expenses, losses, damages, liabilities, demands, charges and claims arising from acts of our Manager not 38 constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, fraud or material breach or reckless disregard of duties, performed in good faith in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement. Our Manager's failure to identify and acquire assets that meet our asset criteria or perform its responsibilities under the management agreement could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, and our ability to maintain our exclusion from the 1940 Act. Our ability to achieve our objectives depends on our Manager's ability to identify and acquire assets that meet our asset criteria. Accomplishing our objectives is largely a function of our Manager's structuring of our investment process, our access to financing on acceptable terms, and general market conditions. Our shareholders do not have input into our investment decisions. All of these factors increase the uncertainty, and thus the risk, of investing in our common shares. The senior management team of our Manager has substantial responsibilities under the management agreement. In order to implement certain strategies, our Manager may need to hire, train, supervise, and manage new employees successfully. Any failure to manage our future growth effectively could materially adversely effect our business, financial condition and results of operations, our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, and our ability to maintain our exclusion from the 1940 Act. If our Manager ceases to be our Manager or one or more of our Manager's key personnel ceases to provide services to us, our lenders and our derivative counterparties may cease doing business with us. If our Manager ceases to be our Manager, including upon the non-renewal of our management agreement, or if one or more of our Manager's key personnel cease to provide services for us, it could constitute an event of default or early termination event under many of our repo financing and derivative hedging agreements, upon which the relevant counterparties would have the right to terminate their agreements with us. If our Manager ceases to be our Manager for any reason, including upon the non-renewal of our management agreement and we are unable to obtain or renew financing or enter into or maintain derivative transactions, it could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. We do not own the Ellington brand or trademark, but may use the brand and trademark as well as our logo pursuant to the terms of a license granted by Ellington. Ellington has licensed the "Ellington" brand, trademark, and logo to us for so long as our Manager or another affiliate of Ellington continues to act as our manager. We do not own the brand, trademark, or logo that we will use in our business and may be unable to protect this intellectual property against infringement from third parties. Ellington retains the right to continue using the "Ellington" brand and trademark. We will further be unable to preclude Ellington from licensing or transferring the ownership of the "Ellington" brand and trademark to third parties, some of whom may compete against us. Consequently, we will be unable to prevent any damage to goodwill that may occur as a result of the activities of Ellington or others. Furthermore, in the event our Manager or another affiliate of Ellington ceases to act as our manager, or in the event Ellington terminates the license, we will be required to change our name and trademark. Any of these events could disrupt our recognition in the marketplace, damage any goodwill we may have generated, and otherwise harm our business. Finally, the license is a domestic license in the United States only and does not give us any right to use the "Ellington" brand, trademark, and logo overseas even though we expect to use the brand, trademark, and logo overseas. Our use of the "Ellington" brand, trademark and logo overseas is therefore unlicensed and could expose us to a claim of infringement. Risks Related to our Common Shares Our shareholders may not receive dividends or dividends may not grow over time. The declaration, amount, nature, and payment of any future dividends on our common shares are at the sole discretion of our Board of Trustees. Under Maryland law, cash dividends on capital stock may only be paid if, after payment, the corporation will be able to pay its debts as they become due in the ordinary course of business; and the corporation’s assets will be greater than its liabilities, plus, unless the charter permits otherwise, the amount that would be needed, if the corporation were to be dissolved at the time of the distribution, to satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of shareholders whose preferential rights on dissolution are superior to those receiving the distribution. Further, even if we are permitted to pay a dividend under Maryland law, we may not have sufficient cash to pay dividends on our common shares. In addition, in order to preserve our liquidity, our Board of Trustees may not declare a dividend at all or declare all or any portion of a dividend to be payable in stock, may delay the record date or payment date for any previously declared, but unpaid, dividend, convert a previously declared, but unpaid, cash dividend on our common shares to a dividend paid partially or completely in common shares, or even revoke a declared, but unpaid, dividend. Our ability to pay dividends may be impaired if any of the risks described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, or any of our other periodic or current reports filed with the SEC, were to occur. In addition, payment of dividends depends upon our earnings, liquidity, financial condition, our financial covenants, and other factors that our Board of Trustees may deem relevant from time to time. There can be no assurance that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that future 39 borrowings or other capital will be available to us in an amount sufficient to enable us to make distributions on our common shares, to pay our indebtedness, or to fund other liquidity needs. Our Board of Trustees will continue to assess the dividend rate on our common shares on an ongoing basis, as market conditions and our financial position continue to evolve. Our Board of Trustees is under no obligation to declare any dividend distribution. There can be no assurance that we will achieve results that will allow us to pay a specified level of dividends or to increase dividends from one period to the next. An increase in interest rates may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common shares and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our common shares is our dividend rate (or expected future dividend rate) as a percentage of our common share price, relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates continue to increase or do not decline from their current levels, prospective investors may demand a higher dividend rate on our common shares or seek alternative investments paying higher dividends or interest. There can be no assurance that we will achieve results that will allow us to increase our dividend rate in response to market interest rate increases. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions can affect the market price of our common shares independent of the effects such conditions may have on our portfolio. For instance, if interest rates rise without an increase in our dividend rate, the market price of our common shares could decrease because potential investors may require a higher dividend yield on our common shares as market rates on interest-bearing instruments such as bonds rise. See also "—Risks Related to our Investments and Investment Activities—Interest rate mismatches between our assets and our borrowings may reduce our income during periods of changing interest rates, and increases in interest rates could adversely affect the value of our assets." Investing in our common shares involves a high degree of risk. The assets we purchase in accordance with our objectives may result in a higher amount of risk than other alternative asset acquisition options. The assets we acquire may be highly speculative and aggressive and may be subject to a variety of risks, including credit risk, prepayment risk, interest rate risk, and market risk. As a result, an investment in our common shares may not be suitable for investors with lower risk tolerance. Risks Related to our Organization and Structure Maintenance of our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act imposes significant limitations on our operations. If we were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, we would be subject to the restrictions imposed by the 1940 Act, which would require us to make material changes to our strategy. We have conducted and intend to continue 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. Both we and our Operating Partnership are organized as holding companies and conduct our business primarily through wholly-owned subsidiaries of our Operating Partnership. Investments in subsidiaries that rely on the exclusions from the definition of investment company under 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act are considered investment securities for the purposes of the 40% Test. Therefore, our Operating Partnership's investments in its 3(c)(7) subsidiaries and its other investment securities cannot exceed 40% of the value of our Operating Partnership's total assets (excluding U.S. government securities and cash) on an unconsolidated basis. This requirement limits the types of businesses in which we may engage and the assets we may hold. Certain of our Operating Partnership's subsidiaries rely on the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act is designed for entities "primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate." This exclusion generally requires that at least 55% of the entity's assets on an unconsolidated basis consist of qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of the entity's assets on an unconsolidated basis consist of qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets. These requirements limit the assets those subsidiaries can own and the timing of sales and purchases of those assets. To classify the assets held by our subsidiaries as qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, we rely on no-action letters and other guidance published by the SEC staff regarding those kinds of assets, as well as upon our analyses (in consultation with outside counsel) of guidance published with respect to other types of assets. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of companies similar to ours, or the guidance from the SEC staff regarding the treatment of assets as qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. In fact, in August 2011, the SEC published a concept release in which it asked for comments on this exclusion from registration. To the extent that the SEC staff provides more specific guidance regarding any of the matters bearing upon our exclusion from the definition of an investment company under the 1940 Act, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. Any additional guidance from the SEC staff could further inhibit our ability to pursue the strategies that we have chosen. Furthermore, although we monitor the assets of our subsidiaries regularly, there can be no assurance that our subsidiaries will be able to maintain their exclusion from registration. Any of the foregoing could require us 40 to adjust our strategy, which could limit our ability to make certain investments or require us to sell assets in a manner, at a price or at a time that we otherwise would not have chosen. This could negatively affect the value of our common shares, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. If we were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, we would be subject to the restrictions imposed by the 1940 Act, which would require us to make material changes to our strategy that could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Our shareholders' ability to control our operations is severely limited. Our Board of Trustees has approval rights with respect to our major strategies, including our strategies regarding investments, financing, growth, debt capitalization, and distributions. Our Board of Trustees may amend or revise these and other strategies without a vote of our shareholders. Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit a change in our control. Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law, or the "MGCL," applicable to a Maryland real estate investment trust may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change in our control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of our common shares with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then prevailing market price of such shares. We are subject to the "business combination" provisions of the MGCL that, subject to limitations, prohibit certain business combinations between us and an "interested shareholder" (defined generally as any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of our then outstanding voting shares or an affiliate or associate of ours who, at any time within the two-year period prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of our then outstanding voting shares) or an affiliate thereof for five years after the most recent date on which the shareholder becomes an interested shareholder and, thereafter, imposes minimum price or supermajority shareholder voting requirements on these combinations. These provisions of the MGCL do not apply, however, to business combinations that are approved or exempted by the board of trustees of a real estate investment trust prior to the time that the interested shareholder becomes an interested shareholder. Pursuant to the statute, our Board of Trustees has by resolution exempted business combinations between us and any other person, provided that the business combination is first approved by our Board of Trustees, including a majority of our trustees who are not affiliates or associates of such person. This resolution, however, may be altered or repealed in whole or in part at any time. If this resolution is repealed, or our Board of Trustees does not otherwise approve a business combination, this statute may discourage others from trying to acquire control of us and increase the difficulty of consummating any offer. The "control share" provisions of the MGCL provide that holders of "control shares" of a Maryland real estate investment trust (defined as shares which, when aggregated with all other shares controlled by the shareholder, entitle the shareholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in the election of trustees) acquired in a "control share acquisition" (defined as the acquisition of "control shares," subject to certain exceptions) have no voting rights with respect to the control shares except to the extent approved by the Maryland real estate investment trust's shareholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding votes entitled to be cast by the acquirer of control shares, its officers and its trustees who are also employees of the Maryland real estate investment trust. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of our shares. There can be no assurance that this provision will not be amended or eliminated at any time in the future. The "unsolicited takeover" provisions of the MGCL permit our Board of Trustees, without shareholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our declaration of trust or bylaws, to implement certain provisions. These provisions may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making an acquisition proposal for us or of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in our control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of our common shares with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then current market price. Our authorized but unissued common and preferred shares may prevent a change in our control. Our declaration of trust authorizes us to issue additional authorized but unissued common shares and preferred shares. In addition, our Board of Trustees may, without shareholder approval, approve amendments to our declaration of trust to increase the aggregate number of our authorized shares or the number of shares of any class or series that we have authority to issue and may classify or reclassify any unissued common shares or preferred shares and may set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares. As a result, among other things, our Board of Trustees may establish a class or series of common shares or preferred shares that could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in our control that might involve a premium price for our common shares or otherwise be in the best interests of our shareholders. 41 Our rights and the rights of our shareholders to take action against our trustees and officers or against our Manager or Ellington are limited, which could limit shareholders' recourse in the event actions are taken that are not in their best interests. Our declaration of trust limits the liability of our present and former trustees and officers to us and our shareholders for money damages to the maximum extent permitted under Maryland law. Under current Maryland law, our present and former trustees and officers will not have any liability to us or our shareholders for money damages other than liability resulting from: • actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services; or • active and deliberate dishonesty by the trustee or officer that was established by a final judgment and is material to the cause of action. Our declaration of trust authorizes us to indemnify our present and former trustees and officers for actions taken by them in those and other capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Our bylaws require us to indemnify each present and former trustee or officer, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, in the defense of any proceeding to which he or she is made, or threatened to be made, a party by reason of his or her service to us as a trustee or officer or in certain other capacities. In addition, we may be obligated to pay or reimburse the expenses incurred by our present and former trustees and officers without requiring a preliminary determination of their ultimate entitlement to indemnification. As a result, we and our shareholders may have more limited rights against our present and former trustees and officers than might otherwise exist absent the current provisions in our declaration of trust and bylaws or that might exist with other companies, which could limit shareholders' recourse in the event of actions not in their best interests. Our declaration of trust contains provisions that make removal of our trustees difficult, which could make it difficult for our shareholders to effect changes to our management. Our declaration of trust provides that, subject to the rights of holders of any series of preferred shares, a trustee may be removed only for "cause" (as defined in our declaration of trust), and then only by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of trustees. Vacancies generally may be filled only by a majority of the remaining trustees in office, even if less than a quorum, for the full term of the class of trustees in which the vacancy occurred. These requirements make it more difficult to change our management by removing and replacing trustees and may prevent a change in our control that is in the best interests of our shareholders. Risks Related to our Intention To Convert to a Registered Closed-End Fund / RIC We may not be able to obtain the necessary approvals to convert to a registered closed-end fund to be treated as a RIC. On April 1, 2024, we announced our intention to focus our investment strategy on CLOs. In connection with this strategic transition, we have revoked our REIT election effective as of January 1, 2024 and intend to complete the Conversion on April 1, 2025 (the "RIC Conversion"). Our ability to complete the RIC Conversion will be subject to certain conditions and there can be no assurance that the conditions to the RIC Conversion will be satisfied in a timely manner or at all, or that an effect, event, circumstance, occurrence, development or change will not transpire that could delay or prevent these conditions from being satisfied. Accordingly, we cannot provide any assurances with respect to the timing of the RIC Conversion or whether the RIC Conversion will be completed at all. U.S. Federal Income Tax Risks An investment in our common shares has various U.S. federal, state, and local income tax risks. We strongly urge shareholders to consult their tax advisors concerning the effects of U.S. federal, state, and local income tax law on an investment in our common shares and on their individual tax situation. We are no longer taxed as a REIT. We have revoked our election to be taxed as a REIT effective as of January 1, 2024. Since January 1, 2024, we have been subject to tax as a C-corporation at regular corporate rates. Failure to qualify as a REIT in prior years would subject us to federal income tax. Prior to our 2024 tax year, we operated in a manner that was intended to cause us to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. However, the tax laws governing REITs are extremely complex, and interpretations of the tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. Qualifying as a REIT required us to meet numerous income and other tests. Given the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, and the possibility of changes in our circumstances, no assurance can be given that we qualified for any particular year. 42 If we failed to qualify as a REIT prior to our 2024 tax year and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would have to pay federal income tax on our taxable income for the year of the failure and for the following four years. Our payment of income tax attributable to our failure to qualify as a REIT prior to our 2024 taxable year would decrease the amount of our income available for distribution to our shareholders. Our ability to utilize our net operating losses ("NOLs") and other carryforwards may be limited. Under the Code, a corporation is generally allowed a deduction for NOLs carried over from prior taxable years, subject to certain limitations. As of December 31, 2024, we had approximately $39.8 million of gross federal NOL carryforwards available to reduce future federal tax liabilities. We also had NOL carryforwards in certain states available to reduce future state tax liabilities. Our NOL carryforwards are subject to adjustment on audit by the Internal Revenue Service and applicable state taxing authorities. Our ability to use our NOLs and other carryforwards depends on the amount of taxable income generated in future periods. Should we recognize a deferred tax asset with respect to such NOLs, there can be no assurance that a valuation allowance will not be required with respect to our NOLs should our financial performance be negatively impacted in the future. In addition, the use of NOLs and other carryforwards to offset taxable income is subject to various limitations, which could limit our ability to utilize these tax attributes to reduce our taxes even if we generate sufficient taxable income. For example, federal NOLs can be used to offset only 80% of our federal taxable income for any taxable year, and Connecticut NOLs can be used to offset only 50% of our Connecticut taxable income for any taxable year. A corporation’s ability to deduct its federal NOL carryforwards and to utilize certain other available tax attributes can be substantially constrained under the general annual limitation rules of Section 382 of the Code (“Section 382”) if it undergoes an “ownership change” as defined in Section 382. In general, an “ownership change” occurs if 5% shareholders increase their collective ownership of the aggregate amount of the outstanding shares of our company by more than 50 percentage points looking back over the relevant testing period. If an ownership change occurs, our ability to use our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes to reduce our taxable income in a future year would be limited to a Section 382 limitation equal to the fair market value of our common shares immediately prior to the ownership change multiplied by the long-term tax-exempt interest rate in effect for the month of the ownership change. An ownership change may severely limit or effectively eliminate our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes. Although we do not believe that an ownership change has occurred, no assurance can be provided as to whether an ownership change has occurred or will occur in the future. Limitations imposed by Sections 382 may discourage us from, among other things, repurchasing our common shares or issuing additional common shares to acquire businesses or assets. We have entered into a Rights Agreement with Equiniti Trust Company, LLC, dated as of April 23, 2024 (the "Rights Agreement") designed to preserve shareholder value and the value of certain tax assets primarily associated with NOL carryforwards under Section 382 of the Code. See "Risks Related to our Organization and Structure—The Rights Agreement that we entered into to protect our tax attributes could hinder the market for our Common Shares." We have made a mark-to-market election under Section 475(f) of the Code. We have made an election under Section 475(f) of the Code to mark our securities to market, on a go-forward basis, effective as of January 1, 2021. There are limited authorities under Section 475(f) of the Code as to what constitutes a trader for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Under other sections of the Code, the status of a trader in securities depends on all of the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the income derived from the taxpayer's activities, the frequency, extent and regularity of the taxpayer's securities transactions, and the taxpayer's investment intent. There can be no assurance that we will continue to qualify as a trader in securities eligible to make a mark-to-market election. We have not received, nor are we seeking, an opinion from counsel or a ruling from the IRS regarding its qualification as a trader. If the qualification for, or our application of, such election were successfully challenged by the IRS, in whole or in part, it could, depending on the circumstances, result in retroactive (or prospective) changes in the amount or timing of recognized gross income, and potentially jeopardize our intention to qualify as a RIC. Finally, mark-to-market gains and losses could cause volatility in the amount of its taxable income. For instance, the mark-to-market election could generate losses in one taxable year that we are unable to use to offset taxable income, followed by mark-to-market gains in a subsequent taxable year that force us to make additional distributions to our shareholders. Hence, the mark-to-market gains and losses could cause us to distribute more dividends to our shareholders in a particular period than would otherwise be desirable from a business perspective. Our recognition of "phantom" income may reduce a shareholder's after-tax return on an investment in our common shares. We may recognize taxable income in excess of our economic income, known as phantom income, in the first years that we hold certain investments, and experience an offsetting excess of economic income over our taxable income in later years. In addition, in years when we have a capital loss carryforward that offsets current year capital gains, our earnings and profits may 43 be higher than our taxable income. As a result, shareholders at times may be required to pay U.S. federal income tax on distributions taxable as dividends that economically represent a return of capital rather than a dividend. These distributions could be offset in later years by distributions that would be treated as returns of capital for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Taking into account the time value of money, this acceleration or increase of U.S. federal income tax liabilities may reduce a shareholder's after-tax return on his or her investment to an amount less than the after-tax return on an investment with an identical before-tax rate of return that did not generate phantom income. Our investments in corporate CLOs may result in our recognizing taxable income prior to receiving cash distributions related to such income. The tax implications of the corporate CLOs in which we invest are complex and, in some circumstances, unclear. In particular, we may recognize taxable income on certain of our CLO investments without the concurrent receipt of cash, or in excess of the actual or anticipated yield generated by such investments. General Risk Factors We, Ellington, or its affiliates may be subject to adverse legislative, regulatory or public policy changes. At any time, U.S. federal, state, local, or foreign laws or regulations that impact our business, or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations, may be enacted or amended. We cannot predict when or if any new law, regulation, or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to or repeal of any existing law, regulation, or administrative interpretation, will be adopted or promulgated or will become effective. Additionally, the adoption or implementation of any new law, regulation, or administrative interpretation, or any revisions in or repeals of these laws, regulations, or administrative interpretations, could cause us to change our portfolio, could constrain our strategy, or increase our costs. We could be adversely affected by any change in or any promulgation of new law, regulation, or administrative interpretation. In addition, political leaders in the U.S. and certain foreign countries have recently been elected on protectionist platforms, fueling doubts about the future of global free trade. The U.S. government has indicated its intent to alter its approach to international trade policy and in some cases to renegotiate certain existing trade agreements with foreign countries. In addition, the U.S. government has recently imposed tariffs on certain foreign goods and has indicated a willingness to impose tariffs on imports of other products. Some foreign governments have instituted retaliatory tariffs on certain U.S. goods and have indicated a willingness to impose additional tariffs on U.S. products. Global trade disruption, significant introductions of trade barriers and bilateral trade frictions, together with any future downturns in the global economy resulting therefrom, could adversely affect our performance. Changes in U.S. federal policy, including tax policies, and at regulatory agencies occur over time through policy and personnel changes following elections, which lead to changes involving the level of oversight and focus on the financial services industry or the tax rates paid by corporate entities. We cannot predict the ultimate impact of the foregoing on us, our business and investments, or the industries in which we invest generally, and any prolonged uncertainty could also have an adverse impact on us and our investment objectives. Future changes may adversely affect our operating environment, including through increasing competition, and therefore our business, operating costs, financial condition and results of operations. Further, an extended federal government shutdown resulting from failing to pass budget appropriations, adopt continuing funding resolutions, or raise the debt ceiling, and other budgetary decisions limiting or delaying government spending, may negatively impact U.S. or global economic conditions, including corporate and consumer spending, and liquidity of capital markets. Failure to procure adequate funding and capital would adversely affect our results and may, in turn, negatively affect the value of our common shares and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. We depend upon the availability of adequate funding and capital for our operations. There can be no assurance that any, or sufficient, funding or capital will be available to us in the future on terms that are acceptable to us. In the event that we cannot obtain sufficient funding and capital on acceptable terms, there may be a negative impact on the value of our common shares and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, and shareholders may lose part or all of their investment. We, Ellington, or its affiliates may be subject to regulatory inquiries and proceedings, or other legal proceedings. At any time, industry-wide or company-specific regulatory inquiries or proceedings can be initiated and we cannot predict when or if any such regulatory inquiries or proceedings will be initiated that involve us or Ellington or its affiliates, including our Manager. We believe that the heightened scrutiny of the financial services industry increases the risk of inquiries and requests from regulatory or enforcement agencies. For example, as discussed under the caption Item 3. Legal Proceedings, over 44 the years, Ellington and its affiliates have received, and we expect in the future that we and they may receive, inquiries and requests for documents and information from various federal, state, and foreign regulators. We can give no assurances that, whether the result of regulatory inquiries or otherwise, neither we nor Ellington nor its affiliates will become subject to investigations, enforcement actions, fines, penalties or the assertion of private litigation claims. If any such events were to occur, we, or our Manager's ability to perform its obligations to us under the management agreement between us and our Manager, or Ellington's ability to perform its obligations to our Manager under the services agreement between Ellington and our Manager, could be materially adversely impacted, which could materially adversely effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. The Rights Agreement that we entered into to protect our tax attributes could hinder the market for our Common Shares. We have entered into the Rights Agreement, which is designed to preserve shareholder value and the value of certain tax assets primarily associated with NOL carryforwards and built-in losses under Section 382 of the Code. The Rights Agreement is intended to act as a deterrent to any person or group acquiring 4.9% or more of our outstanding Common Shares (any such person an “Acquiring Person”), without the approval of our Board of Trustees, until the expiration of the Rights Agreement. In connection therewith, the Board of Trustees declared a dividend of one preferred share purchase right (a "Right") for each of our outstanding common shares. The dividend was payable to shareholders of record as of the close of business on April 23, 2024. Subject to the terms, provisions and conditions of the Rights Agreement, if the Rights become exercisable, each Right would initially represent the right to purchase from us one ten-thousandth of a Series A Junior Preferred Share for a purchase price of $40.00, subject to adjustment in accordance with the terms of the Rights Agreement (the “Purchase Price”). If issued, each fractional preferred share would give the shareholder approximately the same dividend, voting and liquidation rights as does one Common Share. However, prior to exercise, a Right does not give its holder any rights as a shareholder, including without limitation any dividend, voting or liquidation rights. In the event that any person becomes an Acquiring Person, each holder of a Right shall thereafter have the right to receive, upon exercise thereof at a price equal to the then-current Purchase Price, in accordance with the terms of the Rights Agreement and in lieu of Preferred Shares, such number of Common Shares (or at our option, such number of one ten-thousandths of a Preferred Share) as shall equal the result obtained by (x) multiplying the then-current Purchase Price by the number of one ten-thousandths of a Preferred Share for which a Right is then exercisable and dividing that product by (y) 50% of the current per share market price of the Common Shares (determined pursuant to the Rights Agreement) on the date of the occurrence of such event; provided, however, that the Purchase Price (as so adjusted) and the number of Common Shares so receivable upon exercise of a Right shall thereafter be subject to further adjustment as appropriate in accordance with the Rights Agreement. The Rights will generally not be exercisable until the earlier of (i) 10 business days after a public announcement by us that a person or group has become an Acquiring Person and (ii) 10 business days after the commencement of a tender or exchange offer by a person or group for 4.9% or more of the outstanding Common Shares. However, prior to exercise, a Right does not give its holder any rights as a shareholder, including without limitation, any dividend, voting or liquidation rights. Although the Rights Agreement is intended to prevent an "ownership change" as defined by Section 382 of the Code, we cannot provide any assurance that we will not experience such an ownership change or that we will otherwise be able to use, in full or in part, our NOLs. Additionally, the Rights Agreement may make our Common Shares less attractive to large institutional holders, discourage potential acquirers from attempting to take over our company, limit the price that investors might be willing to pay for our Common Shares and otherwise hinder the market for our Common Shares. Future offerings of debt securities, which would rank senior to our common shares upon our bankruptcy liquidation, and future offerings of equity securities which could dilute the common share holdings of our existing shareholders and may be senior to our common shares for the purposes of dividend and liquidating distributions, may adversely affect the market price of our common shares. In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making offerings of debt securities or additional offerings of equity securities, including through the Rights Agreement. Upon bankruptcy or liquidation, holders of our debt securities and preferred shares, if any, and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our common shares. Our preferred shares, if issued, could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend payments or both that could limit our ability to pay a dividend or other distribution to the holders of our common shares. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, holders of our common shares bear the risk of our future offerings, including through the Rights Agreement, reducing the market price of our common shares and diluting their share holdings in us. 45 Future sales of our common shares or other securities convertible into our common shares could cause the market value of our common shares to decline and could result in dilution of shares held by shareholders. Sales of substantial amounts of our common shares or other securities convertible into our common shares could cause the market price of our common shares to decrease significantly. We cannot predict the effect, if any, of future sales of our common shares or other securities convertible into our common shares, or the availability of such securities for future sales, on the market price of our common shares. Sales of substantial amounts of our common shares or other securities convertible into our common shares, or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market values for our common shares. Further, as discussed elsewhere herein, we adopted the Rights Agreement in order to preserve our NOL carryforwards. If the Rights under the Rights Agreement become exercisable, investor's interests in our common shares may be diluted, though the intent of the Rights Agreement is to only dilute the interests of the Acquiring Person (as defined herein). The market for our common shares may be limited, and the price and trading volume of our common shares may be volatile. While our common shares are listed on the NYSE, such listing does not provide any assurance as to whether or not the market price reflects our actual financial performance, the liquidity of our stock, a holder's ability to sell our stock and/or at what price such holder could sell our stock. Market prices for our common shares may be volatile and subject to wide fluctuations, including as a result of the trading volume. There can be no assurance that the market price of our common shares will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. Some of the factors that could negatively affect the price of our common shares, or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our common shares include: • actual or anticipated variations in our dividends or quarterly operating results; • changes in our earnings estimates, failure to meet earnings or operating results expectations of public market analysts and investors, or publication of research reports about us or the real estate specialty finance industry; • increases in market interest rates that lead purchasers of our common shares to demand a higher yield; • repurchases and issuances by us of our common shares; • passage of legislation, changes in applicable law, court rulings, enforcement actions or other regulatory developments that adversely affect us or our industry; • changes in government policies or changes in timing of implementation of government policies, including with respect to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae; • changes in market valuations of similar companies; • adverse market reaction to any increased indebtedness we incur in the future; • additions or departures of key management personnel; • actions by shareholders; • speculation in the press or investment community; • adverse changes in global, national, regional and local economic and market conditions, including those relating to pandemics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, high unemployment, elevated inflation, tariffs, volatile interest rates, concerns regarding a recession, geopolitical conflicts, social unrest, or civil disturbances; • our inclusion in, or exclusion from, various stock indices; • our operating performance and the performance of other similar companies; and • changes in accounting principles. Stock markets in general have experienced volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of a particular company. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common shares. Climate change has the potential to impact our investments. Currently, it is not possible to predict how legislation or new regulations that may be adopted to address greenhouse gas emissions will impact the assets underlying our investments. However, any such future laws and regulations imposing reporting obligations, limitations on greenhouse gas emissions, or additional taxation of energy use could require the owners of assets to make significant expenditures to attain and maintain compliance. Any new legislative or regulatory initiatives related to climate change could adversely affect our business. The physical impact of climate change could also have a material adverse effect on our investments. Physical effects of climate change such as increases in temperature, sea levels, the severity of weather events and the frequency of natural 46 disasters, such as hurricanes, tropical storms, tornadoes, wildfires, droughts, floods and earthquakes, among other effects, could reduce the value of our investments. We may experience significant fluctuations in our book value per share and quarterly operating results. We may experience significant fluctuations in our book value per share from month to month and in our quarterly operating results due to a number of factors, including the timing of distributions to shareholders, fluctuations in the value of our investments, our ability or inability to make investments that meet our investment criteria, the interest and other income earned on our investments, the level of our expenses (including the interest or dividend rate payable on any debt securities or preferred stock that we issue), variations in and the timing of realized and unrealized gains or losses in our portfolio, the degree to which we encounter competition in our markets and general economic conditions. As a result of these factors, our book value per share and results for any period should not be relied upon as being indicative of our book value per share and/or results in future periods. We are subject to risks related to corporate social responsibility. Our business faces public scrutiny related to environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) activities. We risk damage to our reputation if we or affiliates of our Manager are viewed as failing to act responsibly in a number of areas, such as diversity and inclusion, environmental stewardship, support for local communities, corporate governance and transparency and considering ESG factors in our investment processes. Some investors have become more focused on ESG factors, including climate risks, in determining whether to invest in companies. However, regional and investor specific sentiment often differ in what constitutes a material positive or negative ESG corporate practice. Our corporate social responsibility practices will not uniformly fit investors’ definitions, particularly across geographies and investor types, of best practices for ESG considerations. Adverse incidents with respect to ESG activities could impact the cost of our operations and relationships with investors, all of which could adversely affect our business and results of operations. There is growing regulatory interest across jurisdictions in improving transparency regarding the definition, measurement, and disclosure of ESG factors to enable investors to validate and better understand sustainability claims, including an increased regulatory focus on the accuracy of those claims. As a result, we are subject to evolving rules and regulations promulgated by various governmental and self-regulatory organizations, including the SEC, the NYSE, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board. These rules continue to expand in scope and complexity, with new requirements potentially increasing compliance challenges and uncertainty. If we are perceived as, or accused of, "greenwashing" or overstating the extent of our sustainability-related practices, such allegations could damage our reputation, result in litigation or regulatory actions, and negatively impact our ability to raise capital. At the same time, so-called “anti-ESG” sentiment has also gained momentum across the U.S., with several states having enacted or proposed “anti-ESG” policies, legislation, or issued related legal opinions. For example, certain states now require that relevant state entities or managers/administrators of state investments make investments based solely on pecuniary factors without consideration of ESG factors or have enacted "boycott bills." If investors subject to such legislation viewed us, our policies, or our practices, as being in contradiction of such “anti-ESG” policies, legislation or legal opinions, such investors may not invest in us, which could negatively affect our financial performance. If we fail or are perceived to fail to comply with or meet applicable rules, regulations and stakeholder expectations, it could negatively impact our reputation and our business results. Further, our business could become subject to additional regulations, penalties and/or risks of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement in the future. Moreover, the requirements of various regulations we may become subject to may not be consistent with each other. There can be no assurance that our current ESG practices will meet future regulatory requirements, reporting frameworks or best practices, increasing the risk of related enforcement. Compliance with new requirements may lead to increased management burdens and costs. We are largely dependent on external sources of capital in order to grow. Any material growth in our equity capital base is largely funded by external sources of capital. Our access to external capital will depend upon a number of factors, including the market price of our common shares, the market’s perception of our financial condition and potential future earnings, and general market conditions. Periods of heightened inflation could adversely impact our financial results. High inflation, whether caused by low unemployment, high corporate demand, supply-chain issues, geopolitical conflicts, quantitative easing, imposition of tariffs by the federal government, or a combination of these or other factors, may undermine the performance of our investments by reducing the value of such investments and/or the income received from such investments. Inflation and rapid fluctuations in inflation rates have had in the past, and may in the future have, significant 47 effects on interest rates and negative effects on economies and financial markets. See also "— Increases in interest rates could negatively affect the value of our assets and increase the risk of default on our assets.” In addition, actions that the Federal Reserve and other central banks have taken, and could continue to take in response to changes in inflation, could have an adverse impact on the economy broadly and/or on our financial results specifically. See "—Risks Related To Our Investments and Investment Activities—Certain actions by the Federal Reserve could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders." Artificial intelligence and other machine learning techniques could increase competitive, operational, legal and regulatory risks to our business in ways that we cannot predict. The use of AI by us and others, and the overall adoption of AI throughout society, may exacerbate or create new and unpredictable competitive, operational, legal and regulatory risks to our business. There is substantial uncertainty about the extent to which AI will result in dramatic changes throughout the world, and we may not be able to anticipate, prevent, mitigate or remediate all of the potential risks, challenges or impacts of such changes. These changes could potentially disrupt, among other things, our business model, investment strategies and operational processes. Some of our competitors may be more successful than us in the development and implementation of new technologies, including services and platforms based on AI, to improve their operations. If we are unable to adequately advance our capabilities in these areas, or do so at a slower pace than others in our industry, we may be at a competitive disadvantage. If the data we, or third parties whose services we rely on, use in connection with the possible development or deployment of AI is incomplete, inadequate or biased in some way, the performance of our business could suffer. In addition, recent technological advances in AI both present opportunities and pose risks to us. Data in technology that uses AI may contain a degree of inaccuracy and error, which could result in flawed algorithms in various models used in our business. The volume and reliance on data and algorithms also make AI more susceptible to cybersecurity threats, including data poisoning and the compromise of underlying models, training data or other intellectual property. The personnel provided to us by our Manager, and/or our third-party service providers could, without being known to us, improperly utilize AI and machine learning-technology while carrying out their responsibilities. This could reduce the effectiveness of AI technologies and adversely impact us and our operations to the extent that we rely on the AI’s work product. There is also a risk that AI may be misused or misappropriated by our third party service providers. For example, a user may input confidential information, including material non-public information or personally identifiable information, into AI applications, resulting in the information becoming a part of a dataset that is accessible by third-party technology applications and users, including our competitors. Further, we may not be able to control how third-party AI that we choose to use is developed or maintained, or how data we input is used or disclosed. The misuse or misappropriation of our data could have an adverse impact on our reputation and could subject us to legal and regulatory investigations or actions or create competitive risk. In addition, the use of AI by us or others may require compliance with legal or regulatory frameworks that are not fully developed or tested, and we may face litigation and regulatory actions related to our use of AI. There has been increased scrutiny, including from global regulators, regarding the use of “big data,” diligence of data sets and oversight of data vendors. Our ability to use data to gain insights into and manage our business may be limited in the future by regulatory scrutiny and legal developments.