CIM 10-K Fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010

COMMISSION FILE NUMBER:  1-33796

CHIMERA INVESTMENT CORPORATION

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

1211 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2902
New York, New York	10036
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)	(Zip Code)

(646) 454-3759

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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

None.

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.   Yes X No

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes      No X

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days:

Yes X No   ___

2010 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We may invest in net interest margin securities, or NIMs, which are notes that are payable from and secured by excess cash flow that is generated by RMBS or home equity line of credit-backed securities, or HELOCs, after paying the debt service, expenses and fees on such securities.  The excess cash flow represents all or a portion of a residual that is generally retained by the originator of the RMBS or HELOCs.  The residual is illiquid, thus the originator will monetize the position by securitizing the residual and issuing a NIM, usually in the form of a note that is backed by the excess cash flow generated in the underlying securitization.

We may invest in mortgage pass-through certificates issued or guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac which are securities representing interests in “pools” of mortgage loans secured by residential real property where payments of both interest and principal, plus pre-paid principal, on the securities are made monthly to holders of the security, in effect passing through monthly payments made by the individual borrowers on the mortgage loans that underlie the securities, net of fees paid to the issuer/guarantor and servicers of the securities.  We may also invest in CMOs issued by the Agencies.  CMOs consist of multiple classes of securities, with each class bearing different stated maturity dates.  Monthly payments of principal, including prepayments, are first returned to investors holding the shortest maturity class; investors holding the longer maturity classes receive principal only after the first class has been retired.

Agency RMBS are collateralized by either fixed-rate mortgage loans, or FRMs, adjustable-rate mortgage loans, or ARMs, or hybrid ARMs.  Hybrid ARMs are mortgage loans that have interest rates that are fixed for an initial period (typically three, five, seven or ten years) and thereafter reset at regular intervals subject to interest rate caps.  Our allocation between securities collateralized by FRMs, ARMs or hybrid ARMs will depend on various factors including, but not limited to, relative value, expected future prepayment trends, supply and demand, costs of financing, costs of hedging, expected future interest rate volatility and the overall shape of the U.S. Treasury and interest rate swap yield curves.  We take these factors into account when we make these types of investments.

Residential Mortgage Loans

We have invested and intend to continue to invest in residential mortgage loans (mortgage loans secured by residential real property) primarily through direct purchases from selected high-quality originators.  We may to enter into additional mortgage loan purchase agreements with a number of primary mortgage loan originators, including mortgage bankers, commercial banks, savings and loan associations, home builders, credit unions and mortgage conduits.  We may also purchase mortgage loans on the secondary market.  We expect these loans to be secured primarily by residential properties in the United States.

We invest primarily in residential mortgage loans underwritten to our specifications.  The originators perform the credit review of the borrowers, the appraisal of the properties securing the loan, and maintain other quality control procedures.  We generally consider the purchase of loans when the originators have verified the borrowers’ income and assets, verified their credit history and obtained appraisals of the properties.  We or a third party perform an independent underwriting review of the processing, underwriting and loan closing methodologies that the originators used in qualifying a borrower for a loan.  Depending on the size of the loans, we may not review all of the loans in a pool, but rather select loans for underwriting review based upon specific risk-based criteria such as property location, loan size, effective loan-to-value ratio, borrower’s credit score and other criteria we believe to be important indicators of credit risk.  Additionally, before the purchase of loans, we obtain representations and warranties from each originator stating that each loan is underwritten to our requirements or, in the event underwriting exceptions have been made, we are informed so that we may evaluate whether to accept or reject the loans.  An originator who breaches these representations and warranties in making a loan that we purchase may be obligated to repurchase the loan from us.  As added security, we use the services of a third-party document custodian to insure the quality and accuracy of all individual mortgage loan closing documents and to hold the documents in safekeeping.  As a result, all of the original loan collateral documents that are signed by the borrower, other than the original credit verification documents, are examined, verified and held by the third-party document custodian.

We may originate mortgage loans or provide other types of financing to the owners of real estate.  We currently do not intend to establish a loan servicing platform, but expect to retain highly-rated servicers to service our mortgage loan portfolio.  We purchase certain residential mortgage loans on a servicing-retained basis.  In the future, however, we may decide to originate mortgage loans or other types of financing, and we may elect to service mortgage loans and other types of assets.

The actions of the U.S. government, Federal Reserve and Treasury, including the establishment of the TALF and the PPIP, may adversely affect our business.

These restrictions may interfere with our ability to obtain financing, including the financing needed to qualify as a REIT, or to engage in other business activities, which may significantly harm our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. A default and resulting repayment acceleration could significantly reduce our liquidity, which could require us to sell our assets to repay amounts due and outstanding. This could also significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and our ability to make distributions, which could cause the value of our common stock to decline. A default will also significantly limit our financing alternatives such that we will be unable to pursue our leverage strategy, which could curtail our investment returns.

The repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities and credit facilities and commercial paper that we use to finance our investments may require us to provide additional collateral and may restrict us from leveraging our assets as fully as desired.

We will try to use repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities, credit facilities and commercial paper to finance our investments. We currently have uncommitted repurchase agreements with 23 counterparties, including Annaly, for financing our RMBS.  Our repurchase agreements are uncommitted and the counterparty may refuse to advance funds under the agreements to us.  If the market value of the loans or securities pledged or sold by us to a funding source decline in value, we may be required by the lending institution to provide additional collateral or pay down a portion of the funds advanced, but we may not have the funds available to do so. Posting additional collateral will reduce our liquidity and limit our ability to leverage our assets, which could adversely affect our business. In the event we do not have sufficient liquidity to meet such requirements, lending institutions can accelerate repayment of our indebtedness, increase our borrowing rates, liquidate our collateral or terminate our ability to borrow. Such a situation would likely result in a rapid deterioration of our financial condition and possibly necessitate a filing for protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Further, financial institutions may require us to maintain a certain amount of cash that is not invested or to set aside non-levered assets sufficient to maintain a specified liquidity position which would allow us to satisfy our collateral obligations. As a result, we may not be able to leverage our assets as fully as we would choose which could reduce our return on equity. If we are unable to meet these collateral obligations, then, as described above, our financial condition could deteriorate rapidly.

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

When we engage in a repurchase transaction, we generally sell securities to the transaction counterparty and receive cash from the counterparty. The counterparty is obligated to resell the securities back to us at the end of the term of the transaction, which is typically 30-90 days. Because the cash we receive from the counterparty when we initially sell the securities to the counterparty is less than the value of those securities (this difference is referred to as the haircut), if the counterparty defaults on its obligation to resell the securities back to us we would incur a loss on the transaction equal to the amount of the haircut (assuming there was no change in the value of the securities). We would also lose money on a repurchase transaction if the value of the underlying securities has declined as of the end of the transaction term, as we would have to repurchase the securities for their initial value but would receive securities worth less than that amount. Any losses we incur on our repurchase transactions could adversely affect our earnings, and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders. If we default on one of our obligations under a repurchase transaction, the counterparty can terminate the transaction and cease entering into any other repurchase transactions with us. In that case, we would likely need to establish a replacement repurchase facility with another repurchase dealer in order to continue to leverage our portfolio and carry out our investment strategy. There is no assurance we would be able to establish a suitable replacement facility.

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

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

An increase in our borrowing costs relative to the interest we receive on our assets may adversely affect our profitability, and thus our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

As our repurchase agreements and other short-term borrowings mature, we will be required either to enter into new borrowings or to sell certain of our investments. An increase in short-term interest rates at the time that we seek to enter into new borrowings would reduce the spread between our returns on our assets and the cost of our borrowings. This would adversely affect our returns on our assets that are subject to prepayment risk, including our mortgage-backed securities, which might reduce earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

If we issue senior securities we will be exposed to additional risks.

If we decide to issue senior securities in the future, it is likely that they will be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Additionally, any convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock and may result in dilution to owners of our common stock. We and, indirectly, our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities.

Our securitizations will expose us to additional risks.

We have and expect to continue to securitize certain of our portfolio investments to generate cash for funding new investments. We expect to structure these transactions either as financing transactions or as sales for GAAP.  In each such transaction, we convey a pool of assets to a special purpose vehicle, the issuing entity, and the issuing entity issues one or more classes of non-recourse notes pursuant to the terms of an indenture. The notes are secured by the pool of assets. In exchange for the transfer of assets to the issuing entity, we receive the cash proceeds of the sale of non-recourse notes and a 100% interest in the equity of the issuing entity. The securitization of our portfolio investments might magnify our exposure to losses on those portfolio investments because any equity interest we retain in the issuing entity would be subordinate to the notes issued to investors and we would, therefore, absorb all of the losses sustained with respect to a securitized pool of assets before the owners of the notes experience any losses. Moreover, we cannot be assured that we will be able to access the securitization market, or be able to do so at favorable rates. The inability to securitize our portfolio could hurt our performance and our ability to grow our business.

The use of CDO financings with over-collateralization requirements may have a negative impact on our cash flow.

We expect that the terms of CDOs we may sponsor will generally provide that the principal amount of assets must exceed the principal balance of the related bonds by a certain amount, commonly referred to as ‘‘over-collateralization.’’ We anticipate that the CDO terms will provide that, if certain delinquencies or losses exceed the specified levels based on the analysis by the rating agencies (or any financial guaranty insurer) of the characteristics of the assets collateralizing the bonds, the required level of over-collateralization may be increased or may be prevented from decreasing as would otherwise be permitted if losses or delinquencies did not exceed those levels. Other tests (based on delinquency levels or other criteria) may restrict our ability to receive net income from assets collateralizing the obligations. We cannot assure you that the performance tests will be satisfied. In advance of completing negotiations with the rating agencies or other key transaction parties on our future CDO financings, we cannot assure you of the actual terms of the CDO delinquency tests, over-collateralization terms, cash flow release mechanisms or other significant factors regarding the calculation of net income to us. Given recent volatility in the CDO market, rating agencies may depart from historic practices for CDO financings, making them more costly for us. Failure to obtain favorable terms with regard to these matters may materially and adversely affect the availability of net income to us. If our assets fail to perform as anticipated, our over-collateralization or other credit enhancement expense associated with our CDO financings will increase.

Hedging against interest rate exposure may adversely affect our earnings, which could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to losses from adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity varies in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, the type of assets held and other changing market conditions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:

●

interest rate hedging can be expensive, particularly during periods of rising and volatile interest rates;

●

available interest rate hedges may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk for which protection is sought;

●

the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related liability;

●

the amount of income that a REIT may earn from hedging transactions (other than through TRSs) to offset interest rate losses is limited by federal tax provisions governing REITs;

●

the credit quality of the party owing money on the hedge may be downgraded to such an extent that it impairs our ability to sell or assign our side of the hedging transaction; and

●

the party owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay.

Our hedging transactions, which are intended to limit losses, may actually limit gains and increase our exposure to losses. As a result, our hedging activity may adversely affect our earnings, which could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders. In addition, hedging instruments involve risk since they often are not traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house, or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, there are no requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and positions. Furthermore, the enforceability of agreements underlying derivative transactions may depend on compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in its default. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to cover our commitments, if any, at the then current market price. Although generally we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging positions, it may not always be possible to dispose of or close out a hedging position without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to enter into an offsetting contract in order to cover our risk. We cannot assure you that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and we may be required to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in losses.

Our hedging strategies may not be successful in mitigating the risks associated with interest rates.

Subject to complying with REIT tax requirements, we have employed and intend to continue to employ techniques that limit, or hedge, the adverse effects of rising interest rates on our short-term repurchase agreements.  In general, our hedging strategy depends on our view of our entire portfolio, consisting of assets, liabilities and derivative instruments, in light of prevailing market conditions. We could misjudge the condition of our investment portfolio or the market.

Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates and principal repayments, the type of securities held and other changing market conditions. Our actual hedging decisions will be determined in light of the facts and circumstances existing at the time and may differ from our currently anticipated hedging strategy. These techniques may include entering into interest rate caps, collars, floors, forward contracts, futures or swap agreements. We may conduct certain hedging transactions through a TRS, which will be subject to federal, state and, if applicable, local income tax.

There are no perfect hedging strategies, and interest rate hedging may fail to protect us from loss. Alternatively, we may fail to properly assess a risk to our investment portfolio or may fail to recognize a risk entirely, leaving us exposed to losses without the benefit of any offsetting hedging activities. The derivative financial instruments we select may not have the effect of reducing our interest rate risk. The nature and timing of hedging transactions may influence the effectiveness of these strategies. Poorly designed strategies or improperly executed transactions could actually increase our risk and losses. In addition, hedging activities could result in losses if the event against which we hedge does not occur. For example, interest rate hedging could fail to protect us or adversely affect us because, among other things:

●

available interest rate hedging may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk for which protection is sought;

●

the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related liability;

●

as explained in further detail in the risk factor immediately below, the party owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay;

●

the credit quality of the party owing money on the hedge may be downgraded to such an extent that it impairs our ability to sell or assign our side of the hedging transaction; and

●

the value of derivatives used for hedging may be adjusted from time to time in accordance with accounting rules to reflect changes in fair value. Downward adjustments, or “mark-to-market losses,” would reduce our stockholders’ equity.

Whether the derivatives we acquire achieve hedge accounting treatment or not, hedging generally involves costs and risks. Our hedging strategies may adversely affect us because hedging activities involve costs that we will incur regardless of the effectiveness of the hedging activity. Those costs may be higher in periods of market volatility, both because the counterparties to our derivative agreements may demand a higher payment for taking risks, and because repeated adjustments of our hedges during periods of interest rate changes also may increase costs. Especially if our hedging strategies are not effective, we could incur significant hedging-related costs without any corresponding economic benefits.

We have elected not to qualify for hedge accounting treatment.

We record derivative and hedge transactions in accordance with GAAP.  We have elected not to qualify for hedge accounting treatment.  As a result, our operating results may suffer because losses on the derivatives that we enter into may not be offset by a change in the fair value of the related hedged transaction.

Declines in the fair values of our investments may adversely affect periodic reported results and credit availability, which may reduce earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

A substantial portion of our assets are classified for accounting purposes as “available-for-sale” and carried at fair value.  Changes in the fair values of those assets will be directly charged or credited to OCI.  In addition, a decline in values will reduce the book value of our assets. A decline in the fair value of our assets may adversely affect us, particularly in instances where we have borrowed money based on the fair value of those assets. If the fair value of those assets declines, the lender may require us to post additional collateral to support the loan. If we were unable to post the additional collateral, we would have to sell the assets at a time when we might not otherwise choose to do so. A reduction in credit available may reduce our earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to stockholders.

The lack of liquidity in our investments may adversely affect our business.

We may invest in securities or other instruments that are not liquid. It may be difficult or impossible to obtain third party pricing on the investments we purchase.   Illiquid investments typically experience greater price volatility as a ready market does not exist.  In addition, validating third party pricing for illiquid investments may be more subjective than more liquid investments.  The illiquidity of our investments may make it difficult for us to sell such investments if the need or desire arises. In addition, if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we have previously recorded our investments. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be relatively limited, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We are highly dependent on information systems and third parties, and systems failures could significantly disrupt our business, which may, in turn, negatively affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Our business is highly dependent on communications and information systems. Any failure or interruption of our systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities, including mortgage-backed securities trading activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and negatively affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Compliance with proposed and recently enacted changes in securities laws and regulations increases our costs.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange have increased the scope, complexity and cost of corporate governance, reporting and disclosure practices.  We believe that these rules and regulations will make it more costly for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage.  These rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of management and our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee.

The Dodd-Frank Act contains many regulatory changes and calls for future rulemaking that may affect our business, including, but not limited to resolutions involving derivatives, risk-retention in securitizations and short-term financings.  We are evaluating the potential impact of regulatory change under the Dodd-Frank Act.

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

The United States Congress and various state and local legislatures are considering legislation, which, among other provisions, would permit limited assignee liability for certain violations in the mortgage loan origination process, and would allow judicial modification of loan principal in the event of personal bankruptcy.  We cannot predict whether or in what form Congress or the various state and local legislatures may enact legislation affecting our business.  We are evaluating the potential impact of these initiatives, if enacted, on our practices and results of operations.  As a result of these and other initiatives, we are unable to predict whether federal, state or local authorities will require changes in our practices in the future or in our portfolio.  These changes, if required, could adversely affect our profitability, particularly if we make such changes in response to new or amended laws, regulations or ordinances in any state where we acquire a significant portion of our mortgage loans, or if such changes result in us being held responsible for any violations in the mortgage loan origination process, or if the principal amount of loans we own or are in RMBS pools we own are modified in the personal bankruptcy process.

Risks Related to Our Investments

We might not be able to purchase residential mortgage loans, mortgage-backed securities and other investments that meet our investment criteria or at favorable spreads over our borrowing costs.

To the extent we purchase assets using leverage, our net income depends on our ability to acquire residential mortgage loans, mortgage-backed securities and other investments at favorable spreads over our borrowing costs.  Our investments are selected by our Manager, and our stockholders will not have input into such investment decisions. Our Manager has conducted due diligence with respect to each investment purchased.  However, there can be no assurance that our Manager's due diligence processes will uncover all relevant facts or that any investment will be successful.

We may not realize income or gains from our investments.

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

Our investments may be concentrated and will be subject to risk of default.

While we intend to diversify our portfolio of investments, we are not required to observe specific diversification criteria. To the extent that our portfolio is concentrated in any one region or type of security, downturns relating generally to such region or type of security may result in defaults on a number of our investments within a short time period, which may reduce our net income and the value of our shares and accordingly may reduce our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Our investments in subordinated RMBS are generally in the “first loss” position and our investments in the mezzanine RMBS are generally in the “second loss” position and therefore subject to losses.

In general, losses on a mortgage loan included in a securitization will be borne first by the equity holder of the issuing trust, and then by the “first loss” subordinated security holder and then by the “second loss” mezzanine holder.  In the event of default and the exhaustion of any classes of securities junior to those in which we invest and there is any further loss, we will not be able to recover all of our investment in the securities we purchase.  In addition, if the underlying mortgage portfolio has been overvalued by the originator, or if the values subsequently decline and, as a result, less collateral is available to satisfy interest and principal payments due on the related RMBS, the securities in which we invest may effectively become the “first loss” position behind the more senior securities, which may result in significant losses to us.  The prices of lower credit quality securities are generally less sensitive to interest rate changes than more highly rated investments, but more sensitive to adverse economic downturns or individual issuer developments.  A projection of an economic downturn, for example, could cause a decline in the price of lower credit quality securities because the ability of obligors of mortgages underlying RMBS to make principal and interest payments may be impaired.  In such event, existing credit support in the securitization structure may be insufficient to protect us against loss of our principal on these securities.

Increases in interest rates could negatively affect the value of our investments, which could result in reduced earnings or losses and negatively affect the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We have and will continue to invest in real estate-related assets by acquiring RMBS, residential mortgage loans, CMBS and CDOs backed by real estate-related assets.  Under a normal yield curve, an investment in these assets will decline in value if long-term interest rates increase. Declines in market value may ultimately reduce earnings or result in losses to us, which may negatively affect cash available for distribution to our stockholders. A significant risk associated with these investments is the risk that both long-term and short-term interest rates will increase significantly. If long-term rates were to increase significantly, the market value of these investments would decline, and the duration and weighted average life of the investments would increase. We could realize a loss if these assets were sold. At the same time, an increase in short-term interest rates would increase the amount of interest owed on the repurchase agreements or other adjustable rate financings we may enter into to finance the purchase of these assets.  Market values of our investments may decline without any general increase in interest rates for a number of reasons, such as increases in defaults, increases in voluntary prepayments for those investments that are subject to prepayment risk and widening of credit spreads.

In a period of rising interest rates, our interest expense could increase while the interest we earn on our fixed-rate assets would not change, which would adversely affect our profitability.

Our operating results will depend in large part on the differences between the income from our assets, net of credit losses and financing costs. We anticipate that, in most cases, the income from such assets will respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Consequently, changes in interest rates, particularly short-term interest rates, may significantly influence our net income. Increases in these rates will tend to decrease our net income and market value of our assets. Interest rate fluctuations resulting in our interest expense exceeding our interest income would result in operating losses for us and may limit or eliminate our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

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

We intend to fund some of our acquisitions of residential mortgage loans, real estate-related securities and real estate loans with borrowings that have interest rates based on indices and repricing terms with shorter maturities than the interest rate indices and repricing terms of our adjustable-rate assets.  Accordingly, if short-term interest rates increase, this may harm our profitability.

Some of the residential mortgage loans, real estate-related securities and real estate loans we acquire are and will be fixed-rate securities.  This means that their interest rates will not vary over time based upon changes in a short-term interest rate index.  Therefore, the interest rate indices and repricing terms of the assets that we acquire and their funding sources will create an interest rate mismatch between our assets and liabilities.  During periods of changing interest rates, these mismatches could reduce our net income, dividend yield and the market price of our stock.

Accordingly, in a period of rising interest rates, we could experience a decrease in net income or a net loss because the interest rates on our borrowings adjust whereas the interest rates on our fixed-rate assets remain unchanged.

Interest rate caps on our adjustable rate RMBS may adversely affect our profitability.

Adjustable-rate RMBS are typically subject to periodic and lifetime interest rate caps. Periodic interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase during any given period. Lifetime interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase over the life of the security. Our borrowings typically will not be subject to similar restrictions. Accordingly, in a period of rapidly increasing interest rates, the interest rates paid on our borrowings could increase without limitation while caps could limit the interest rates on our adjustable-rate RMBS. This problem is magnified for hybrid adjustable-rate and adjustable-rate RMBS that are not fully indexed. Further, some hybrid adjustable-rate and adjustable-rate RMBS may be subject to periodic payment caps that result in a portion of the interest being deferred and added to the principal outstanding. As a result, we may receive less cash income on hybrid adjustable-rate and adjustable-rate RMBS than we need to pay interest on our related borrowings. These factors could reduce our net interest income and cause us to suffer a loss.

A significant portion of our portfolio investments will be recorded at fair value as determined in accordance with our pricing policy and, as a result, there will be uncertainty as to the value of these investments.

A significant portion of our portfolio of investments is in the form of securities that are not publicly traded. The fair value of securities and other investments that are not publicly traded may not be readily determinable.  It may be difficult or impossible to obtain third party pricing on the investments we purchase.  We value these investments quarterly at fair value, as determined in accordance with our pricing policy as approved by our board of directors. Because such valuations are inherently uncertain, may fluctuate over short periods of time and may be based on estimates, our determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these securities existed. The value of our common stock could be adversely affected if our determinations regarding the fair value of these investments were materially higher than the values that we ultimately realize upon their disposal.

A prolonged economic slowdown, a recession or declining real estate values could impair our investments and harm our operating results.

Many of our investments are susceptible to economic slowdowns or recessions, which could lead to financial losses in our investments and a decrease in revenues, net income and assets. Unfavorable economic conditions also could increase our funding costs, limit our access to the capital markets or result in a decision by lenders not to extend credit to us. These events could prevent us from increasing investments and have an adverse effect on our operating results.

Changes in prepayment rates could negatively affect the value of our investment portfolio, which could result in reduced earnings or losses and negatively affect the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

There are seldom any restrictions on borrowers’ abilities to prepay their residential mortgage loans. Homeowners tend to prepay mortgage loans faster when interest rates decline. Consequently, owners of the loans have to reinvest the money received from the prepayments at the lower prevailing interest rates. Conversely, homeowners tend not to prepay mortgage loans when interest rates increase. Consequently, owners of the loans are unable to reinvest money that would have otherwise been received from prepayments at the higher prevailing interest rates. This volatility in prepayment rates may affect our ability to maintain targeted amounts of leverage on our portfolio of residential mortgage loans, RMBS, and CDOs backed by real estate-related assets and may result in reduced earnings or losses for us and negatively affect the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

To the extent our investments are purchased at a premium, faster than expected prepayments result in a faster than expected amortization of the premium paid, which would adversely affect our earnings.  Conversely, if these investments were purchased at a discount, faster than expected prepayments accelerate our recognition of income.

The mortgage loans we invest in and the mortgage loans underlying the mortgage and asset-backed securities we invest in are subject to delinquency, foreclosure and loss, which could result in losses to us.

Residential mortgage loans are typically secured by single-family residential property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property is dependent upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors, including a general economic downturn, acts of God, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances, may impair borrowers’ abilities to repay their loans. In addition, we invest in non-Agency RMBS, which are backed by residential real property but, in contrast to Agency RMBS, their principal and interest is not guaranteed by federally chartered entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and, in the case of Ginnie Mae, the U.S. government. The U.S. Department of Treasury and FHFA have also entered into preferred stock purchase agreements between the U.S. Department of Treasury and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pursuant to which the U.S. Department of Treasury will ensure that each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac maintains a positive net worth.  Asset-backed securities are bonds or notes backed by loans or other financial assets. The ability of a borrower to repay these loans or other financial assets is dependent upon the income or assets of these borrowers. Commercial mortgage loans are secured by multifamily or commercial property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss that are greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential property. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of such property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Net operating income of an income producing property can be affected by, among other things, tenant mix, success of tenant businesses, property management decisions, property location and condition, competition from comparable types of properties, changes in laws that increase operating expense or limit rents that may be charged, any need to address environmental contamination at the property, the occurrence of any uninsured casualty at the property, changes in national, regional or local economic conditions or specific industry segments, declines in regional or local real estate values, declines in regional or local rental or occupancy rates, increases in interest rates, real estate tax rates and other operating expenses, changes in governmental rules, regulations and fiscal policies, including environmental legislation, acts of God, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances. In the event of any default under a mortgage loan held directly by us, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan, which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations. In the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan. RMBS evidence interests in or are secured by pools of residential mortgage loans and CMBS evidence interests in or are secured by a single commercial mortgage loan or a pool of commercial mortgage loans. Accordingly, the RMBS and CMBS we invest in are subject to all of the risks of the respective underlying mortgage loans.

We may be required to repurchase mortgage loans or indemnify investors if we breach representations and warranties, which could harm our earnings.

If we sell loans, we would be required to make customary representations and warranties about such loans to the loan purchaser. Our residential mortgage loan sale agreements will require us to repurchase or substitute loans in the event we breach a representation or warranty given to the loan purchaser. In addition, we may be required to repurchase loans as a result of borrower fraud or in the event of early payment default on a mortgage loan. Likewise, we are required to repurchase or substitute loans if we breach a representation or warranty in connection with our securitizations. The remedies available to a purchaser of mortgage loans are generally broader than those available to us against the originating broker or correspondent. Further, if a purchaser enforces its remedies against us, we may not be able to enforce the remedies we have against the sellers. The repurchased loans typically can only be financed at a steep discount to their repurchase price, if at all. They are also typically sold at a significant discount to the unpaid principal balance. Significant repurchase activity could harm our cash flow, results of operations, financial condition and business prospects.

We may enter into derivative contracts that could expose us to contingent liabilities in the future.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, part of our investment strategy involves entering into derivative contracts that could require us to fund cash payments in certain circumstances. These potential payments will be contingent liabilities and therefore may not appear on our consolidated statement of financial condition. Our ability to fund these contingent liabilities will depend on the liquidity of our assets and access to capital at the time, and the need to fund these contingent liabilities could adversely impact our financial condition.

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

Before making an investment, our Manager assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the originator or issuer of the asset as well as other factors and characteristics that are material to the performance of the investment. In making the assessment and otherwise conducting customary due diligence, our Manager relies on resources available to it and, in some cases, an investigation by third parties. This process is particularly important with respect to newly formed originators or issuers with unrated and other subordinated tranches of RMBS and ABS because there may be little or no information publicly available about these entities and investments. There can be no assurance that our Manager’s due diligence process will uncover all relevant facts or that any investment will be successful.

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

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

●

acts of God, including earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters, which may result in uninsured losses;

●

acts of war or terrorism, including the consequences of terrorist attacks, such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001;

●

adverse changes in national and local economic and market conditions;

●

changes in governmental laws and regulations, fiscal policies and zoning ordinances and the related costs of compliance with laws and regulations, fiscal policies and ordinances;

●

costs of remediation and liabilities associated with environmental conditions such as indoor mold; and

●

the potential for uninsured or under-insured property losses.

If any of these or similar events occurs, it may reduce our return from an affected property or investment and reduce or eliminate our ability to make distributions to stockholders.

We may be exposed to environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title.

In the course of our business, we may take title to real estate, and, if we do take title, we could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these properties. In such a circumstance, we may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation, and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or may be required to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances, or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. If we ever become subject to significant environmental liabilities, our business, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

We may in the future invest in RMBS collateralized by subprime mortgage loans, which are subject to increased risks.

We may in the future invest in RMBS backed by collateral pools of subprime residential mortgage loans. ‘‘Subprime’’ mortgage loans refer to mortgage loans that have been originated using underwriting standards that are less restrictive than the underwriting requirements used as standards for other first and junior lien mortgage loan purchase programs, such as the programs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These lower standards include mortgage loans made to borrowers having imperfect or impaired credit histories (including outstanding judgments or prior bankruptcies), mortgage loans where the amount of the loan at origination is 80% or more of the value of the mortgage property, mortgage loans made to borrowers with low credit scores, mortgage loans made to borrowers who have other debt that represents a large portion of their income and mortgage loans made to borrowers whose income is not required to be disclosed or verified. Due to economic conditions, including increased interest rates and lower home prices, as well as aggressive lending practices, subprime mortgage loans have in recent periods experienced increased rates of delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss, and they are likely to continue to experience delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss rates that are higher, and that may be substantially higher, than those experienced by mortgage loans underwritten in a more traditional manner. Thus, because of the higher delinquency rates and losses associated with subprime mortgage loans, the performance of RMBS backed by subprime mortgage loans in which we may invest could be correspondingly adversely affected, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

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

Given the complexity of our investments and strategies, our Manager must rely heavily on analytical models (both net present value based loss mitigation models and those supplied by third-parties) and information and data supplied by third-parties, or Models and Data.  Models and Data will be used to value investments or potential investments and also in connection with hedging our investments.  When Models and Data prove to be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon expose us to potential risks. For example, by relying on Models and Data, especially valuation models, our Manager may be induced to buy certain investments at prices that are too high, to sell certain other investments at prices that are too low or to miss favorable opportunities altogether.  Similarly, any hedging based on faulty Models and Data may prove to be unsuccessful.  Furthermore, any valuations of our investments that are based on valuation models may prove to be incorrect.

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

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

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

Regulatory and Legal Risks

Violations of federal, state and local laws by the originator, the servicer, or may result in rescission of the loans or penalties that may adversely impact our income.

Violations of certain provisions of federal, state and local laws by the originator, the servicer or us, as well as actions by governmental agencies, authorities and attorneys general, may limit our or the servicer’s ability to collect all or part of the principal of, or interest on, the residential mortgage loans we purchase and hold, and loans that serve as security for the RMBS we purchase and hold.  Violations could also subject the entity that made or modified the loans to damages and administrative enforcement (including disgorgement of prior interest and fees paid).  In particular, a loan seller’s failure to comply with certain requirements of federal and state laws could subject the seller (and other assignees of the mortgage loans) to monetary penalties and result in the obligors’ rescinding the mortgage loans against the seller and any subsequent holders of the mortgage loans, even if the assignee was not responsible for and was unaware of those violations.  These adverse consequences vary depending on the applicable law and may vary depending on the type or severity of the violation, but they typically include:

●

the ability of the homeowner to rescind, or cancel, the loan;

●

the inability of the holder of the loan to collect all of the principal and interest otherwise due on the loan;

●

the right of the homeowner to a refund of amounts previously paid (which may include amounts financed by the loan), or to set off those amounts against his or her future loan obligations; and

●

the liability of the servicer and the owner of the loan for actual damages, statutory damages and punitive damages, civil or criminal penalties, costs and attorneys’ fees.

The terms of the documents under which we intend to purchase loans, and the terms of the documents used to create the RMBS we intend to purchase, may entitle the holders of the loans and the special purpose vehicles that hold loans in RMBS to contractual indemnification against these liabilities.  For example, the sellers of loans placed in a securitization typically represent that each mortgage loan was made in compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations at the time it was made.  If there is a material breach of that representation, the seller may be contractually obligated to cure the breach or repurchase or replace the affected mortgage loan.  If the seller is unable or otherwise fails to satisfy these obligations, the yield on the loans and RMBS might be materially and adversely affected.  Due to the well publicized recent deterioration in the housing and commercial property markets, many of the sellers that issued these indemnifications are no longer in business or are unable to financially respond to their indemnification obligations.  Consequently, holders of interests in the loans and RMBS may ultimately have to absorb the losses arising from the sellers’ violations.  While we attempt to take these factors into account in the prices we pay for loans and RMBS, we can offer no assurances concerning the validity of the assumptions we use in our pricing decisions.

Furthermore, the volume of new and modified laws and regulations at both the federal and state levels has increased in recent years.  For example, H.R. 1105, which was signed into law in March 2009, gives the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, authority to issue rules under which it will define what constitutes unfair and deceptive practices relating to mortgage lending and loan servicing and which gives enforcement authority to state attorneys general.  There is also an increased risk that the both we and the servicer of loans we purchase or that are held in RMBS we purchase may be involved in litigation over violations or alleged violations of recently enacted and proposed laws.  It is possible that these laws might result in additional significant costs and liabilities, which could further adversely affect the results of our operations.  Any litigation would increase our expenses and reduce funds available for distribution to our stockholders.

Some local municipalities also have enacted laws that impose potentially significant penalties on loan servicing activities related to abandoned properties or real estate owned properties.

Any of these preceding could result in delays and/or reductions in receipts of amounts due on the loans we intend to purchase or on the loans held in RMBS we intend to purchase, harming our income and operating results.

We may be subject to liability for potential violations of predatory lending and other laws, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

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

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

There is the potential for limitations on our ability to finance purchases of loans and RMBS, and for losses on the loans and RMBS we purchase, as a result of violations of law by the originating lenders.

In June 2003, a California jury found a warehouse lender and securitization underwriter liable in part for fraud on consumers committed by a lender to whom it provided financing and underwriting services.  The jury found that the investment bank was aware of the fraud and substantially assisted the lender in perpetrating the fraud by providing financing and underwriting services that allowed the lender to continue to operate, and held it liable for 10% of the plaintiff’s damages.  This instance of liability is the first case we know of in which an investment bank was held partly responsible for violations committed by a mortgage lender customer.  Shortly after the announcement of the jury verdict in the California case, the Florida Attorney General filed suit against the same financial institution, seeking an injunction to prevent it from financing mortgage loans within Florida, as well as damages and civil penalties, based on theories of unfair and deceptive trade practices and fraud.  The suit claimed that this financial institution aided and abetted the same lender involved in the California case in its commission of fraudulent representations in Florida.

In December of 2008, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court’s order entered against a lender that enjoined the lender from foreclosing, without court approval, on certain mortgage loans secured by the borrower’s principal dwelling that the court considered “presumptively unfair.”

In May of 2009, another securitizer of residential mortgage loans entered into a settlement agreement with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts stemming from its investigation of subprime lending and securitization markets.  The securitizer agreed to provide loan restructuring (including significant principal write-downs) valued at approximately $50 million to Massachusetts subprime borrowers and to make a $10 million payment to the Commonwealth. If other courts or regulators take similar actions, investment banks and investors in residential and commercial mortgage loans and RMBS (such as us) might face increased litigation as they are named as defendants in lawsuits and regulatory actions against the mortgage companies or securitizers with which they do business or they might be prohibited from foreclosing on loans they purchased.  Some investment banks may charge more for warehouse lending and reduce the prices they pay for loans to build in the costs of this potential litigation or exit the business entirely, thereby increasing our cost of borrowing.  Any such actions by courts and regulators, and any such increases in our costs of borrowing, could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and business prospects.

We are required to obtain various state licenses in order to purchase mortgage loans in the secondary market and there is no assurance we will be able to obtain or maintain those licenses.

While we are not required to obtain licenses to purchase mortgage-backed securities, we are required to obtain various state licenses to purchase mortgage loans in the secondary market. There is no assurance that we will obtain all of the licenses that we desire or that we will not experience significant delays in seeking these licenses. Furthermore, we will be subject to various information reporting requirements to maintain these licenses, and there is no assurance that we will satisfy those requirements. Our failure to obtain or maintain licenses will restrict our investment options and could harm our business.

The federal government’s pressing for refinancing of certain loans may affect prepayment rates for mortgage loans in RMBS.

In addition to the increased pressure upon residential mortgage loan investors and servicers to engage in loss mitigation activities, the federal government is pressing for refinancing of certain loans, and this encouragement may affect prepayment rates for mortgage loans in RMBS.  To the extent these and other economic stabilization or stimulus efforts are successful in increasing prepayment speeds for residential mortgage loans, such as those in RMBS, that could potentially harm our income and operating results, particularly in connection with loans or RMBS purchased at a premium or our interest-only securities.

Federal and state agencies have taken enforcement actions and enacted regulations and government programs  that require government sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), insured depository institutions, and state regulated loan servicers to engage in loss mitigation activities relating to residential mortgage loans.

Federal and state agencies have taken enforcement actions and enacted regulations that require government sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), insured depository institutions, and state regulated loan servicers to engage in loss mitigation activities relating to residential mortgage loans.  Other agencies have published policies that strongly recommend these entities to engage in loss mitigation activities.  These loss mitigation activities may include, for example, loan modifications that significantly reduce interest and payments, deferrals of payments, and reductions of principal balances.  Such modifications may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

We will likely be subject to civil liability if we fail to make required disclosures to consumers.

Purchasers of consumer purpose, residential mortgage loans have affirmative disclosure obligations to consumers under the HFSTH Act, which Congress enacted in May 2009 with an immediate effective date.  This new statutory obligation will subject purchasers of mortgage loans to civil liability if they fail to make the required disclosures. Specifically, section 404 of the HFSTH Act amends the Truth in Lending Act to provide that a creditor that purchases or is assigned a mortgage loan must notify the borrower in writing of a sale or transfer of his or her mortgage loan, not later than 30 days after the transaction’s completion.  The notice must include how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor, the location of the place where the transfer of ownership is recorded and any other relevant information about the new creditor.  This disclosure would be in addition to any transfer of servicing notice required under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  Federal consumer credit law does not typically impose responsibility on assignees to communicate directly with mortgagors, and the statutory language is ambiguous.

Litigation alleging inability to foreclose may limit our ability to recover on some of the loans we purchase or that are held in RMBS.

In October 2007, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed 14 cases in which plaintiffs sought to foreclose mortgages held in securitization trusts by ruling that those plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.  In each case, the judge found that the plaintiff was not the owner of the note and mortgage on the date the foreclosure complaint was filed in court.  Similar actions have been initiated in other states.  These actions arise as a result of the common practice in the mortgage industry of mortgage loan sellers providing the loan purchasers unrecorded assignments of the mortgage in blank (i.e., the assignments do not name the assignee).  Some courts have held that before a note holder may initiate a foreclosure, the note holder must show proof to the court that the mortgage itself has been properly assigned to the purchaser each time the mortgage loan has been sold.  It is sometimes difficult to obtain and then record originals of each successive assignment.  It is still unclear whether higher courts will uphold the requirements imposed by these lower courts.

Until the issue is settled, investors in mortgage loans are at risk of being unable to foreclose on defaulted loans, or at a minimum will be subject to delays until all assignments in the chain of the loan’s title are properly recorded.  Thus, we may not be able to recover on some of the loans we purchase or that are held in the RMBS we purchase, or we may suffer delays in foreclosure, all of which could result in a lower return on our loans and RMBS.

In addition, some legislatures are also instituting stringent proof of ownership requirements that a servicer must satisfy before commencing a foreclosure action. By way of example, the New York State Assembly earlier this year amended state law to require that any foreclosure complaint contain an affirmative allegation that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the note and mortgage at issue or has been delegated the authority to institute the foreclosure action by the owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note.  Again, laws of this type may limit our ability to recover on some of the loans we purchase or that are held in the RMBS we purchase, and may result in delays in the foreclosure process, all of which could result in a lower return on our loans and RMBS.

Legislative action to provide mortgage relief and foreclosure moratoriums may negatively impact our business.

As delinquencies and defaults in residential mortgages have recently increased, there has been an increasing amount of legislative action that might restrict our ability to foreclose and resell the property of a customer in default.  For example, some recently enacted state laws may require the lender to deliver a notice of intent to foreclose, provide borrowers additional time to cure or reinstate their loans, impose mandatory settlement conference and mediation requirements, require lenders to offer loan modifications, and prohibit initiation of foreclosure until the borrower has been provided time to consult with foreclosure counselors.

Alternatively, new federal legislation and some legislatures provide a subsidy to a customer to permit the customer to continue to make payments during a period of hardship.  In the case of a subsidy, it is possible that we might be required to forego a portion of the amount otherwise due on the loan for a temporary period.

Finally, some state legislatures are requiring foreclosing lenders to give special notices to tenants in properties that the lenders are foreclosing on, or to permit the tenants to remain in the property for a period of time following the foreclosure.

These laws delay the initiation or completion of foreclosure proceedings on specified types of residential mortgage loans, or otherwise limit the ability of residential loan servicers to take actions that may be essential to preserve the value of the mortgage loans on behalf of the holders of RMBS.   Any such limitations are likely to cause delayed or reduced collections from mortgagors and generally increased servicing costs.  Any restriction on our ability to foreclose on a loan, any requirement that we forego a portion of the amount otherwise due on a loan or any requirement that we modify any original loan terms is likely to negatively impact our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

United States military operations may increase risk of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act shortfalls.

Under the federal Service members Civil Relief Act, a borrower who enters active military service after the origination of his or her mortgage loan generally may not be required to pay interest above an annual rate of 6%, and the note holder is restricted from exercising certain enforcement remedies, during the period of the borrower’s active duty status.  Several states also have enacted or are considering similar laws with varying applicability and effect.  As a result of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has placed a substantial number of armed forces reservists and members of the National Guard on active duty status.  It is possible that the number of reservists and members of the National Guard placed on active duty status may remain at high levels for an extended time.  To the extent that a member of the military, or a member of the armed forces reserves or National Guard who is called to active duty, is a mortgagor on a loan underlying RMBS we may purchase, the interest rate limitation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and any comparable state law, will apply.  An increase in the number of borrowers taking advantage of those laws may increase servicing expenses for loans underlying RMBS we may purchase, and may also reduce cash flow and the interest payments collected from those borrowers.  In the event of default, the laws may result in delaying or preventing the loan servicer from exercising otherwise available remedies for default.  If these events occur, they may result in interest shortfalls on the loans in underlying RMBS we may purchase that will be borne by holders of those RMBS.

Risks Related To Our Common Stock

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

At December 31, 2010, we had 1,027,034,357 shares of common stock issued and outstanding.  The market price of shares of our common stock may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations.  In addition, the trading volume in our shares of common stock may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. We cannot assure you that the market price of our shares of common stock will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. Some of the factors that could negatively affect our share price or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our shares of common stock include those set forth under “Risk Factors” and “A Warning About Forward-Looking Statements” and in the information incorporated and deemed to be incorporated by reference herein, as well as:

●

actual or anticipated variations in our quarterly operating results or business prospects;

●

changes in our earnings estimates or publication of research reports about us or the real estate industry;

●

an inability to meet or exceed securities analysts' estimates or expectations;

●

increases in market interest rates;

●

hedging or arbitrage trading activity in our shares of common stock;

●

capital commitments;

●

changes in market valuations of similar companies;

●

changes in valuations of our assets;

●

adverse market reaction to any increased indebtedness we incur in the future;

●

additions or departures of management personnel;

●

actions by institutional shareholders;

●

speculation in the press or investment community;

●

changes in our distribution policy;

●

regulatory changes affecting our industry generally or our business;

●

general market and economic conditions; and

●

future sales of our shares of common stock or securities convertible into, or exchangeable or exercisable for, our shares of common stock.

Common stock eligible for future sale may have adverse effects on our share price.

If we issue a significant number of shares of common stock or securities convertible into common stock in a short period of time, there could be a dilution of the existing common stock and a decrease in the market price of the common stock.

We cannot predict the effect, if any, of future sales of common stock, or the availability of shares for future sales, on the market price of the common stock.  Sales of substantial amounts of common stock, or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market prices for the common stock.  At December 31, 2010, we had 1,027,034,357 shares of common stock issued and outstanding.  Annaly owned approximately 4.38% of our outstanding shares of common stock as of December 31, 2010.  Our equity incentive plan provides for grants of restricted common stock and other equity-based awards up to an aggregate of 8% of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock (on a fully diluted basis) at the time of the award, subject to a ceiling of 40,000,000 shares available for issuance under the plan.  On January 2, 2008, our executive officers and other employees of our Manager and our independent directors were granted, as a group, 1,301,000 shares of our restricted common stock.  The restricted common stock granted to our executive officers and other employees of our Manager or its affiliates vests in equal installments on the first business day of each fiscal quarter over a period of 10 years beginning on January 2, 2008, of which 416,200 shares vested and 43,025 shares were forfeited as of December 31, 2010.  The restricted common stock granted to our executive officers and other employees of our Manager or its affiliates that remain outstanding and are unvested will fully vest on the death of the individual.  We do not make distributions on shares of restricted stock that have not vested.

Annaly has agreed with us to a lock-up period in connection with the shares purchased by Annaly immediately after our 2008 secondary offering that will expire at the earlier of (i) October 24, 2011 or (ii) the termination of the management agreement.  Annaly has agreed with us to a further lock-up period in connection with the shares purchased by Annaly immediately after our April 15, 2009 secondary offering that will expire at the earlier of (i) April 15, 2012 or (ii) the termination of the management agreement. Annaly has agreed with us to a further lock-up period in connection with the shares purchased by Annaly immediately after our May 27, 2009 secondary offering that will expire at the earlier of (i) May 27, 2012 or (ii) the termination of the management agreement. When the lock-up periods expire, these common shares will become eligible for sale, in some cases subject to the requirements of Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act.   The market price of our common stock may decline significantly when the restrictions on resale by certain of our stockholders lapse.  Sales of substantial amounts of common stock or the perception that such sales could occur may adversely affect the prevailing market price for our common stock.

There is a risk that our stockholders may not receive distributions or that distributions may not grow over time.

We intend to make distributions on a quarterly basis out of assets legally available to our stockholders in amounts such that all or substantially all of our REIT taxable income in each year is distributed. We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and our ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors described herein.  All distributions will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our earnings, our financial condition, maintenance of our REIT status and other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time. Among the factors that could adversely affect our results of operations and impair our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders are:

●

the profitability of the investments of net proceeds from our equity raises;

●

our ability to make profitable investments;

●

margin calls or other expenses that reduce our cash flow;

●

defaults in our asset portfolio or decreases in the value of our portfolio; and

●

the fact that anticipated operating expense levels may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates.

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

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

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our shares is our distribution rate as a percentage of our share price relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective investors may demand a higher distribution rate or seek alternative investments paying higher dividends or interest. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions can affect the market value of our shares. For instance, if interest rates rise, it is likely that the market price of our shares will decrease as market rates on interest-bearing securities, such as bonds, increase.

Investing in our shares may involve a high degree of risk.

The investments we make in accordance with our investment objectives may result in a high amount of risk when compared to alternative investment options and volatility or loss of principal. Our investments may be highly speculative and aggressive, are subject to credit risk, interest rate, and market value risks, among others, and therefore an investment in our shares may not be suitable for someone with lower risk tolerance.

Broad market fluctuations could negatively impact the market price of our common stock.

The stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market price of many companies in industries similar or related to ours and that have been unrelated to these companies’ operating performances. These broad market fluctuations could reduce the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, our operating results and prospects may be below the expectations of public market analysts and investors or may be lower than those of companies with comparable market capitalizations, which could lead to a material decline in the market price of our common stock.

Future sales of shares may have adverse consequences for investors.

We may issue additional shares in subsequent public offerings or private placements to make new investments or for other purposes. We are not required to offer any such shares to existing shareholders on a pre-emptive basis. Therefore, it may not be possible for existing shareholders to participate in such future share issues, which may dilute the existing shareholders’ interests in us.

Our charter and bylaws contain provisions that may inhibit potential acquisition bids that stockholders may consider favorable, and the market price of our common stock may be lower as a result.

Our charter and bylaws contain provisions that have an anti-takeover effect and inhibit a change in our board of directors. These provisions include the following:

●

There are ownership limits and restrictions on transferability and ownership in our charter. To qualify as a REIT for each taxable year after 2007, not more than 50% of the value of our outstanding stock may be owned, directly or constructively, by five or fewer individuals during the second half of any calendar year. In addition, our shares must be beneficially owned by 100 or more persons during at least 335 days of a taxable year of 12 months or during a proportionate part of a shorter taxable year for each taxable year after 2007. To assist us in satisfying these tests, our charter generally prohibits any person from beneficially or constructively owning more than 9.8% in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of any class or series of our outstanding capital stock. These restrictions may discourage a tender offer or other transactions or a change in the composition of our board of directors or control that might involve a premium price for our shares or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders and any shares issued or transferred in violation of such restrictions being automatically transferred to a trust for a charitable beneficiary, thereby resulting in a forfeiture of the additional shares.

●

Our charter permits our board of directors to issue stock with terms that may discourage a third party from acquiring us . Our charter permits our board of directors to amend the charter without stockholder approval to increase the total number of authorized shares of stock or the number of shares of any class or series and to issue common or preferred stock, having preferences, conversion or other rights, voting powers, restrictions, limitations as to dividends or other distributions, qualifications, or terms or conditions of redemption as determined by our board.  Thus, our board could authorize the issuance of stock with terms and conditions that could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of some or a majority of our shares might receive a premium for their shares over the then-prevailing market price of our shares.

●

Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act. Maryland law provides that ‘‘control shares’’ of a corporation acquired in a ‘‘control share acquisition’’ will have no voting rights except to the extent approved by a vote of two-thirds of the votes eligible to be cast on the matter under the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act. ‘‘Control shares’’ means voting shares of stock that, if aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquirer or in respect of which the acquirer is able to exercise or direct the exercise of voting power (except solely by a revocable proxy), would entitle the acquirer to exercise voting power in electing directors within one of the following ranges of voting power: one-tenth or more but less than one-third, one-third or more but less than a majority, or a majority or more of all voting power. A ‘‘control share acquisition’’ means the acquisition of control shares, subject to certain exceptions.

If voting rights or control shares acquired in a control share acquisition are not approved at a stockholders’ meeting, or if the acquiring person does not deliver an acquiring person statement as required by the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act, then, subject to certain conditions and limitations, the issuer may redeem any or all of the control shares for fair value. If voting rights of such control shares are approved at a stockholders’ meeting and the acquirer becomes entitled to vote a majority of the shares of stock entitled to vote, all other stockholders may exercise appraisal rights. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting acquisitions of our shares from the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act. However, our board of directors may amend our bylaws in the future to repeal or modify this exemption, in which case any control shares of our company acquired in a control share acquisition will be subject to the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act.

●

Business Combinations . Under Maryland law, ‘‘business combinations’’ between a Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder or an affiliate of an interested stockholder are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. These business combinations include a merger, consolidation, share exchange or, in circumstances specified in the statute, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities. An interested stockholder is defined as:

o

any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of the corporation’s shares; or

o

an affiliate or associate of the corporation who, at any time within the two-year period before the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the voting power of the then outstanding voting stock of the corporation.

A person is not an interested stockholder under the statute if the board of directors approved in advance the transaction by which such person otherwise would have become an interested stockholder. However, in approving a transaction, the board of directors may provide that its approval is subject to compliance, at or after the time of approval, with any terms and conditions determined by the board.  After the five-year prohibition, any business combination between the Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder generally must be recommended by the board of directors of the corporation and approved by the affirmative vote of at least:

o

80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of outstanding shares of voting stock of the corporation; and

o

two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of voting stock of the corporation, other than shares held by the interested stockholder with whom or with whose affiliate the business combination is to be effected or held by an affiliate or associate of the interested stockholder.

These super-majority vote requirements do not apply if the corporation’s common stockholders receive a minimum price, as defined under Maryland law, for their shares in the form of cash or other consideration in the same form as previously paid by the interested stockholder for its shares.  The statute permits various exemptions from its provisions, including business combinations that are exempted by the board of directors before the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder.  Our board of directors has adopted a resolution which provides that any business combination between us and any other person is exempted from the provisions of the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act, provided that the business combination is first approved by the board of directors.  This resolution, however, may be altered or repealed in whole or in part at any time.  If this resolution is repealed, or the board of directors does not otherwise approve a business combination, this statute may discourage others from trying to acquire control of us and increase the difficulty of consummating any offer.

●

Staggered board. Our board of directors is divided into three classes of directors. The current terms of the directors expire in 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively. Directors of each class are chosen for three-year terms upon the expiration of their current terms, and each year one class of directors is elected by the stockholders. The staggered terms of our directors may reduce the possibility of a tender offer or an attempt at a change in control, even though a tender offer or change in control might be in the best interests of our stockholders.

●

Our charter and bylaws contain other possible anti-takeover provisions. Our charter and bylaws contains other provisions that may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us or the removal of existing directors and, as a result, could prevent our stockholders from being paid a premium for their common stock over the then-prevailing market price.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited, which could limit stockholder's recourse in the event of actions not in their best interests.

Our charter limits the liability of our directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages, except for liability resulting from:

●

actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services; or

●

a final judgment based upon a finding of active and deliberate dishonesty by the director or officer that was material to the cause of action adjudicated

for which Maryland law prohibits such exemption from liability.

In addition, our charter authorizes us to obligate our company to indemnify our present and former directors and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Our bylaws require us to indemnify each present or former director or officer, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, in the defense of any proceeding to which he or she is made, or threatened to be made, a party because of his or her service to us. In addition, we may be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers.

The fair value of certain of the assets on our consolidated balance sheets as calculated according to GAAP may not reflect amounts we would receive if we disposed of those assets.

GAAP requires that we consolidate our RMBS re-securitization transactions on our consolidated balance sheets and report these assets at fair value.  Under GAAP, fair value for these assets is measured by determining the fair value of the underlying RMBS assets we contributed to the re-securitization trust as opposed to evaluating the fair value of the re-securitized securities we received as a result of the RMBS re-securitization transaction.

The fair value of the underlying RMBS assets subject to the RMBS re-securitization transactions may differ from the value of the re-securitized securities we received as a result of the RMBS re-securitization transaction.  Discrepancies arise as a result of market dynamics, the limitations of the measurement techniques required by GAAP, the consolidation accounting principles under GAAP and the subordinate nature, complexity, illiquidity and restrictive features of the re-securitized securities we own.  These differences between the fair value of the underlying RMBS consolidated on our consolidated balance sheet under GAAP presentation and the economic value of our investments in the re-securitized securities can be significant.

A discrepancy where the fair value of the underlying RMBS assets contained in a re-securitization trust is different from the amount we would receive if we sold the re-securitized securities we own may result in an overstatement or understatement of our book value due to the accounting standards we are required to apply. Reporting a higher book value than the value of our net investments in assets could have adverse effects on us. The adverse effects could include the inability to agree upon covenants with counterparties, the inability to satisfy collateral demands of counterparties based on their review of our financial statements, or an overestimation in the market price of our common stock.

Changes in the fair values of our assets, liabilities, and interest rate swaps can have adverse effects on us, including earnings volatility, and volatility in our book value.

The fair values for our assets, liabilities, and interest rate swaps can be volatile. The fair values can change rapidly and significantly from a variety of factors, including changes in interest rates, credit performance, perceived risk, supply, demand, and actual and projected cash flows and prepayments.  Decreases in fair value may not necessarily be the result of deterioration in future cash flows. Moreover, fair values for illiquid assets can be difficult to estimate, which may lead to volatility and uncertainty of earnings.

For GAAP purposes, we mark to market some, but not all, of the assets and liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet. In addition, valuation adjustments on certain consolidated assets and our interest rate swaps are reflected in our consolidated statement of income. If we sell an asset that has not been marked to market through our consolidated statement of income at a reduced market price relative to its cost basis, our reported earnings will be reduced.

A decrease in the fair value of the securities we own may result in a reduction in our book value due to the accounting standards we are required to apply. Reporting a low book value could have adverse effects even if that book value is not indicative of the actual value of our net investments in assets. The adverse effects could include the inability to meet or agree upon covenants with counterparties, to enter into interest rate swaps, or a reduction in the market price of our common stock.

Tax Risks

Your investment has various federal income tax risks.

This summary of certain tax risks is limited to the federal tax risks addressed below. Additional risks or issues may exist that are not addressed in this Form 10-K and that could affect the federal tax treatment of us or our stockholders.  This is not intended to be used and cannot be used by any stockholder to avoid penalties that may be imposed on stockholders under the Internal Revenue Code, or the Code. We strongly urge you to seek advice based on your particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor concerning the effects of federal, state and local income tax law on an investment in common stock and on your individual tax situation.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forego otherwise attractive opportunities.

To qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy various tests regarding the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. To meet these tests, we may be required to forego investments we might otherwise make. We may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our investment performance.

Complying with REIT requirements may force us to liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

To qualify as a REIT, we generally must ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter at least 75% of the value of our total assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets, including certain mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities and qualifying real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities, qualifying real estate assets, and stock in one or more TRSs) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 25% of the value of our total securities can be represented by securities of one or more TRSs.  If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any quarter, we must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of such calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT status and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate from our portfolio otherwise attractive investments. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

Potential characterization of distributions or gain on sale may be treated as unrelated business taxable income to tax-exempt investors.

If (1) all or a portion of our assets are subject to the rules relating to taxable mortgage pools, (2) we are a ‘‘pension-held REIT,’’ or (3) a tax-exempt stockholder has incurred debt to purchase or hold our common stock, then a portion of the distributions to and, in the case of a stockholder described in clause (3), gains realized on the sale of common stock by such tax-exempt stockholder may be subject to federal income tax as unrelated business taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code.

Classification of a securitization or financing arrangement we enter into as a taxable mortgage pool could subject us or certain of our stockholders to increased taxation.

We intend to structure our securitization and financing arrangements as to not create a taxable mortgage pool. However, if we have borrowings with two or more maturities and, (1) those borrowings are secured by mortgages or mortgage-backed securities and (2) the payments made on the borrowings are related to the payments received on the underlying assets, then the borrowings and the pool of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities to which such borrowings relate may be classified as a taxable mortgage pool under the Internal Revenue Code. If any part of our investments were to be treated as a taxable mortgage pool, then our REIT status would not be impaired, but a portion of the taxable income we recognize may, under regulations to be issued by the Treasury Department, be characterized as ‘‘excess inclusion’’ income and allocated among our stockholders to the extent of and generally in proportion to the distributions we make to each stockholder. Any excess inclusion income would:

●

not be allowed to be offset by a stockholder’s net operating losses;

●

be subject to a tax as unrelated business income if a stockholder were a tax-exempt stockholder;

●

be subject to the application of federal income tax withholding at the maximum rate (without reduction for any otherwise applicable income tax treaty) with respect to amounts allocable to foreign stockholders; and

●

be taxable (at the highest corporate tax rate) to us, rather than to our stockholders, to the extent the excess inclusion income relates to stock held by disqualified organizations (generally, tax-exempt organizations not subject to tax on unrelated business income, including governmental organizations).

Failure to qualify as a REIT would subject us to federal income tax, which would reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2007. However, the federal income tax laws governing REITs are extremely complex, and interpretations of the federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. Qualifying as a REIT requires us to meet various tests regarding the nature of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding stock, and the amount of our distributions on an ongoing basis. While we intend to operate so that we will qualify as a REIT, given the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, including the tax treatment of certain investments we may make, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, no assurance can be given that we will so qualify for any particular year. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any calendar year and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be required to pay federal income tax on our taxable income. We might need to borrow money or sell assets to pay that tax. Our payment of income tax would decrease the amount of our income available for distribution to our stockholders. Furthermore, if we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our REIT taxable income to our stockholders. Unless our failure to qualify as a REIT were excused under federal tax laws, we would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification was lost.

Failure to make required distributions would subject us to tax, which would reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

To qualify as a REIT, we must distribute to our stockholders each calendar year at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (excluding certain items of non-cash income in excess of a specified threshold), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. To the extent that we satisfy the 90% distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed income. In addition, we will incur a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than the sum of:

●

85% of our REIT ordinary income for that year;

●

95% of our REIT capital gain net income for that year; and

●

any undistributed taxable income from prior years.

We intend to distribute our REIT taxable income to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the 90% distribution requirement and to avoid both corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax. However, there is no requirement that TRSs distribute their after-tax net income to their parent REIT or their stockholders. Our taxable income may substantially exceed our net income as determined by GAAP, because, for example, realized capital losses will be deducted in determining our GAAP net income, but may not be deductible in computing our taxable income. In addition, we may invest in assets that generate taxable income in excess of economic income or in advance of the corresponding cash flow from the assets. To the extent that we generate such non-cash taxable income in a taxable year, we may incur corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax on that income if we do not distribute such income to stockholders in that year. As a result of the foregoing, we may generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year. In that event, we may be required to use cash reserves, incur debt, or liquidate non-cash assets at rates or at times that we regard as unfavorable to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax in that year.  Moreover, our ability to distribute cash may be limited by financing facilities we may enter into.

Ownership limitations may restrict change of control or business combination opportunities in which our stockholders might receive a premium for their shares.

In order for us to qualify as a REIT for each taxable year after 2007, no more than 50% in value of our outstanding capital stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals during the last half of any calendar year. ‘‘Individuals’’ for this purpose include natural persons, private foundations, some employee benefit plans and trusts, and some charitable trusts. To preserve our REIT qualification, our charter generally prohibits any person from directly or indirectly owning more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of any class or series of the outstanding shares of our capital stock. This ownership limitation could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests.

Our ownership of and relationship with any TRS which we may form or acquire will be limited, and a failure to comply with the limits would jeopardize our REIT status and may result in the application of a 100% excise tax.

A REIT may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more TRSs. A TRS may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned directly by the parent REIT. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. Overall, no more than 25% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRSs. A TRS will pay federal, state and local income tax at regular corporate rates on any income that it earns. In addition, the TRS rules impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis. Any TRS that we may form would pay federal, state and local income tax on its taxable income, and its after-tax net income would be available for distribution to us but would not be required to be distributed to us. We anticipate that the aggregate value of the TRS stock and securities owned by us will be less than 25% of the value of our total assets (including the TRS stock and securities). Furthermore, we will monitor the value of our investments in our TRSs to ensure compliance with the rule that no more than 25% of the value of our assets may consist of TRS stock and securities (which is applied at the end of each calendar quarter). In addition, we will scrutinize all of our transactions with taxable REIT subsidiaries to ensure that they are entered into on arm’s-length terms to avoid incurring the 100% excise tax described above. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be able to comply with the 25% limitation discussed above or to avoid application of the 100% excise tax discussed above.

We could fail to qualify as a REIT or we could become subject to a penalty tax if income we recognize from certain investments that are treated or could be treated as equity interests in a foreign corporation exceeds 5% of our gross income in a taxable year.

We may invest in securities, such as subordinated interests in certain CDO offerings, that are treated or could be treated for federal (and applicable state and local) corporate income tax purposes as equity interests in foreign corporations. Categories of income that qualify for the 95% gross income test include dividends, interest and certain other enumerated classes of passive income. Under certain circumstances, the federal income tax rules concerning controlled foreign corporations and passive foreign investment companies require that the owner of an equity interest in a foreign corporation include amounts in income without regard to the owner’s receipt of any distributions from the foreign corporation. Amounts required to be included in income under those rules are technically neither actual dividends nor any of the other enumerated categories of passive income specified in the 95% gross income test. Furthermore, there is no clear precedent with respect to the qualification of such income under the 95% gross income test. Due to this uncertainty, we intend to limit our direct investment in securities that are or could be treated as equity interests in a foreign corporation such that the sum of the amounts we are required to include in income with respect to such securities and other amounts of non-qualifying income do not exceed 5% of our gross income. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in this regard. To avoid any risk of failing the 95% gross income test, we may be required to invest only indirectly, through a domestic TRS, in any securities that are or could be considered to be equity interests in a foreign corporation. This, of course, will result in any income recognized from any such investment to be subject to federal income tax in the hands of the TRS, which may, in turn, reduce our yield on the investment.

Liquidation of our assets may jeopardize our REIT qualification.

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

The tax on prohibited transactions will limit our ability to engage in transactions, including certain methods of securitizing mortgage loans that would be treated as sales for federal income tax purposes.

A REIT’s net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property, other than foreclosure property, but including mortgage loans, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to this tax if we sold or securitized our assets in a manner that was treated as a sale for federal income tax purposes. Therefore, to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of assets at the REIT level and may securitize assets only in transactions that are treated as financing transactions and not as sales for tax purposes even though such transactions may not be the optimal execution on a pre-tax basis.  We could avoid any prohibited transactions tax concerns by engaging in securitization transactions through a TRS, subject to certain limitations described above. To the extent that we engage in such activities through domestic TRSs, the income associated with such activities will be subject to federal (and applicable state and local) corporate income tax.

Characterization of the repurchase agreements we enter into to finance our investments as sales for tax purposes rather than as secured lending transactions would adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

We have entered into and will enter into repurchase agreements with a variety of counterparties to achieve our desired amount of leverage for the assets in which we invest. When we enter into a repurchase agreement, we generally sell assets to our counterparty to the agreement and receive cash from the counterparty. The counterparty is obligated to resell the assets back to us at the end of the term of the transaction, which is typically 30 to 90 days. We believe that for federal income tax purposes we will be treated as the owner of the assets that are the subject of repurchase agreements and that the repurchase agreements will be treated as secured lending transactions notwithstanding that such agreement may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could successfully assert that we did not own these assets during the term of the repurchase agreements, in which case we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

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

The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code substantially limit our ability to hedge mortgage-backed securities and related borrowings. Under these provisions, our annual gross income from non-qualifying hedges, together with any other income not generated from qualifying real estate assets, cannot exceed 25% of our annual gross income. In addition, our aggregate gross income from non-qualifying hedges, fees, and certain other non-qualifying sources cannot exceed 5% of our annual gross income. As a result, we might have to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a TRS, which we may form in the future. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear.

We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could reduce the market price of our common stock.

At any time, the federal income tax laws or regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be amended. We cannot predict when or if any new federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective and any such law, regulation or interpretation may take effect retroactively. We and our stockholders could be adversely affected by any such change in, or any new, federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation.

Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates.

Legislation enacted in 2003 generally reduces the maximum tax rate for dividends payable to domestic stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates from 38.6% to 15% (through 2012). Dividends payable by REITs, however, are generally not eligible for the reduced rates. Although this legislation does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in stock of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our common stock.

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2.  Properties

We do not own any property.  Our executive and administrative office is located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2902, New York, New York 10036, telephone (646) 454-3759.  We share this office space with Annaly and FIDAC.

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings

We are not party to any material litigation or legal proceedings, or to the best of our knowledge, any threatened litigation or legal proceedings, which, in our opinion, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Item 4.  (Removed and Reserved)