EFC · Read the filing

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Summary of Risk Factors

Risks Related To Our Business

•Difficult conditions in the mortgage and residential real estate markets as well as general market concerns may adversely affect the value of the assets in which we invest.

•The federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related efforts, along with any changes in laws and regulations affecting the relationship between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae and the U.S. Government, may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

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

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

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

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

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

•We depend on third-party service providers, including mortgage servicers, for a variety of services related to our non-Agency RMBS, European assets, securitizations, and whole mortgage loans and loan pools. We are, therefore, subject to the risks associated with third-party service providers.

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

•We may be affected by deficiencies in foreclosure practices of third parties, as well as related delays in the foreclosure process.

•To the extent that due diligence is conducted on potential assets, such due diligence may not reveal all of the risks associated with such assets and may not reveal other weaknesses in such assets, which could lead to losses.

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

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

•Investments in second-lien mortgage loans could subject us to increased risk of losses.

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

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

•An increase in interest rates may cause a decrease in the issuance volumes of certain of our targeted assets, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire targeted assets that satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and pay dividends.

•Interest rate caps on the ARMs and hybrid ARMs that back our RMBS may reduce our net interest margin during periods of rising or high interest rates.

•Residential mortgage loans, including residential NPLs, non-QM loans, and residential transition loans, are subject to increased risks.

•If we subsequently resell any whole mortgage loans that we acquire, we may be required to repurchase such loans or indemnify purchasers if we breach representations and warranties.

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

•Our investments in CMBS are at risk of loss.

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

•A portion of our investments currently are, and in the future may be, in the form of non-performing and sub-performing commercial and residential mortgage loans, or loans that may become non-performing or sub-performing, which are subject to increased risks relative to performing loans.

•Our real estate assets and our real estate-related assets (including mortgage loans and MBS) are subject to the risks associated with real property.

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

•We use leverage in executing our business strategy, which may adversely affect the return on our assets and may reduce cash available for distribution to our stockholders, as well as increase losses when economic conditions are unfavorable.

•Our access to financing sources, which may not be available on favorable terms, or at all, may be limited, and our lenders and derivative counterparties may require us to post additional collateral. These circumstances may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

•A failure to comply with restrictive covenants in our financing arrangements would have a material adverse effect on us, and any future financings may require us to provide additional collateral or pay down debt.

•Our securitizations may expose us to additional risks.

•Interest rate mismatches between our assets and our borrowings may reduce our income during periods of changing interest rates, and increases in interest rates could adversely affect the value of our assets.

•The anticipated discontinuation of LIBOR and transition from LIBOR to an alternative reference rate may adversely affect the value and liquidity of the financial obligations to be held or issued by us that are linked to LIBOR.

•Our investments that are denominated in foreign currencies subject us to foreign currency risk, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

•Hedging against credit events, interest rate changes, foreign currency fluctuations, and other risks may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

•Hedging instruments and other derivatives, including some credit default swaps, may not, in many cases, be traded on regulated exchanges, or may not be guaranteed or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authority and involve risks and costs that could result in material losses.

•Certain of our hedging instruments are regulated by the CFTC and such regulations may adversely impact our ability to enter into such hedging instruments and cause us to incur increased costs.

•Our use of derivatives may expose us to counterparty risk.

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

•Certain actions by the Federal Reserve could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

•We may change our investment strategy, investment guidelines, hedging strategy, and asset allocation, operational, and management policies without notice or stockholder consent, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to

Table of Contents

our stockholders. In addition, our Board of Directors may authorize us to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election without the approval of our stockholders.

•We operate in a highly competitive market.

•We are highly dependent on Ellington's information systems and those of third-party service providers and system failures could significantly disrupt our business, which may, in turn, materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

•Because we are highly dependent on information systems when sharing information with third party service providers, systems failures, breaches or cyber-attacks could significantly disrupt our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows.

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

•The lack of liquidity in our assets may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

•We could be subject to liability for potential violations of predatory lending laws, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

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

•Consumer loans are subject to delinquency and loss, which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

•Increased regulatory attention and potential regulatory action on certain areas within the consumer credit or reverse mortgage businesses could have a negative impact on our reputation, or cause losses on our investments in consumer loans or our equity investment in loan originators.

•Our investments in distressed debt and equity have significant risk of loss, and our efforts to protect these investments may involve large costs and may not be successful.

•We have held and may continue to hold the debt securities, loans or equity of companies that are more likely to enter into bankruptcy proceedings or have other risks.

•We may be subject to risks associated with syndicated loans.

•We have made and may in the future make investments in companies that we do not control.

•We have invested and may in the future invest in securities in the developing CRT sector that are subject to mortgage credit risk.

Risks Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic

•The recent global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected, and could continue to adversely affect, our business, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations.

Risks Related to our Relationship with our Manager and Ellington

•Our relationship with our Manager and Ellington poses risks to us.

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

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

Risks Related to Our Common Stock and Preferred Stock

•Our stockholders may not receive dividends or dividends may not grow over time.

•An increase in interest rates may have an adverse effect on the market price of our equity or debt securities and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

•Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

•Our certificate of incorporation, bylaws and management agreement 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.

•There are ownership limits and restrictions on transferability in our certificate of incorporation.

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

•Our certificate of incorporation designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders' ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors or officers.

•Maintenance of our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act imposes significant limitations on our operations.

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

U.S. Federal Income Tax Risks

•Your investment has various U.S. federal, state, and local income tax risks. Our failure to qualify as a REIT would subject us to U.S. federal, state and local income taxes, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock and would substantially reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

•Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forego or liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

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

Table of Contents

If any of the following risks occurs, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us, or not presently deemed material by us, may also impair our operations and performance. In connection with the forward-looking statements that appear in our periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K, our Current Reports on Form 8-K, our press releases and our other written and oral communications, you should also carefully review the cautionary statements referred to in such reports and other communications referred to under "Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements."

Risks Related To Our Business

Difficult conditions in the mortgage and residential real estate markets as well as general market concerns may adversely affect the value of the assets in which we invest.

Our business is materially affected by conditions in the residential mortgage market, the residential real estate market, the financial markets, and the economy, including inflation, energy costs, unemployment, geopolitical issues, concerns over the creditworthiness of governments worldwide and the stability of the global banking system. In particular, the residential mortgage markets in the U.S. and Europe have experienced a variety of difficulties and challenging economic conditions in the past, including defaults, credit losses, and liquidity concerns. Certain commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and mortgage-related investment vehicles incurred extensive losses from exposure to the residential mortgage market as a result of these difficulties and conditions. These factors have impacted, and may in the future impact, investor perception of the risks associated with residential mortgage loans, RMBS, other real estate-related securities and various other asset classes in which we may invest. As a result, values for residential mortgage loans, RMBS, other real estate-related securities and various other asset classes in which we may invest have experienced, and may in the future experience, significant volatility. Any deterioration of the mortgage market and investor perception of the risks associated with residential mortgage loans, RMBS, other real estate-related securities, and various other assets that we acquire could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

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

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

In September 2008, in response to the deteriorating financial condition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. Government placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or "FHFA," their federal regulator, pursuant to its powers under The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, a part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Under this conservatorship, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to reduce the amount of mortgage loans they own or for which they provide guarantees on Agency RMBS. In addition to the FHFA becoming the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. Treasury entered into Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (“PSPAs”) with the FHFA and have taken various actions intended to provide Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with additional liquidity in an effort to ensure their financial stability.

Shortly after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed in federal conservatorship, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury noted that the guarantee structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac required examination and that changes in the structures of the entities were necessary to reduce risk to the financial system. The future roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be significantly reduced, and the nature of their guarantees could be considerably limited relative to historical measurements or even eliminated. The substantial financial assistance provided by the U.S. Government to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, especially in the course of their being placed into conservatorship and thereafter, together with the substantial financial assistance provided by the U.S. Government to the mortgage-related operations of other GSEs and government agencies, such as the FHA, VA, and Ginnie Mae, has stirred debate among many federal policymakers over the continued role of the U.S. Government in providing such financial support for the mortgage-related GSEs in particular, and for the mortgage and housing markets in general.

Table of Contents

In May 2020, the FHFA announced new capital rules for the GSEs intended to rebuild the GSEs’ capital bases in advance of leaving conservatorship. On June 30, 2020, the proposed rule for the GSEs was published in the Federal Register, and on December 17, 2020, the final rule was published with an effective date of February 16, 2021. In January 2021, the FHFA and the U.S. Treasury agreed to modifications to the PSPAs that will permit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue to retain earnings until they satisfy the requirements of the new capital rules. However, no definitive proposals or legislation have been released or enacted with respect to ending the conservatorship, unwinding the GSEs, or materially reducing the roles of the GSEs in the U.S. mortgage market, and it is not possible at this time to predict the scope and nature of the actions that the U.S. Government will ultimately take with respect to these GSEs.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae could each be dissolved, and the U.S. Government could determine to stop providing liquidity support of any kind to the mortgage market. If Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae were eliminated, or their structures were to change radically, or if the U.S. Government significantly reduced its support for any or all of them, we may be unable or significantly limited in our ability to acquire Agency RMBS, which would drastically reduce the amount and type of Agency RMBS available for purchase which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our ability to maintain our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act and our ability to maintain our qualification as a REIT. Moreover, any changes to the nature of the guarantees provided by, or laws affecting, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae could materially adversely affect the credit quality of the guarantees, could increase the risk of loss on purchases of Agency RMBS issued by these GSEs and could have broad adverse market implications for the Agency RMBS they currently guarantee. Any action that affects the credit quality of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae could materially adversely affect the value of our Agency RMBS. In addition, any market uncertainty that arises from such proposed changes could have a similar impact on us and our Agency RMBS.

In addition, we rely on our Agency RMBS as collateral for our financings under the repos that we enter into. Any decline in their value, or perceived market uncertainty about their value, would make it more difficult for us to obtain financing on our Agency RMBS on acceptable terms or at all, or to maintain compliance with the terms of any financing transactions.

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

The U.S. Government, through the U.S. Treasury, FHA, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or "FDIC," has at various points in time, including in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and may again in the future, implement programs designed to provide homeowners with assistance in avoiding mortgage loan foreclosures. The programs may involve, among other things, the modification of mortgage loans to reduce the principal amount of the loans or the rate of interest payable on the loans, or to extend the payment terms of the loans.

Loan modification and refinance programs may adversely affect the performance of Agency and non-Agency RMBS and residential mortgage loans. In the case of non-Agency RMBS, a significant number of loan modifications with respect to a given security, including those related to principal forgiveness and coupon reduction, could negatively impact the realized yields and cash flows on such security. Similarly, principal forgiveness and/or coupon reduction could negatively impact the performance of any residential mortgage loans we own. In addition, it is also likely that loan modifications would result in increased prepayments on some RMBS. See "—Prepayment rates can change, adversely affecting the performance of our assets," below.

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

The existing loan modification programs, together with future legislative or regulatory actions, including possible amendments to the bankruptcy laws, which result in the modification of outstanding residential mortgage loans and/or changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for refinancing mortgage loans with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae, may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, our assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Table of Contents

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

Our portfolio includes non-Agency RMBS which are backed by residential mortgage loans that do not conform to the Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac underwriting guidelines, including subprime, manufactured housing, Alt-A, prime jumbo, non-QM, and single-family-rental mortgage loans. Consequently, the principal and interest on non-Agency RMBS, unlike those on Agency RMBS, are not guaranteed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or, in the case of Ginnie Mae, the U.S. Government.

Non-Agency RMBS are subject to many of the risks of the respective underlying mortgage loans. A residential mortgage loan is typically secured by single-family residential property and is subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risk 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, unemployment, acts of God, pandemics such as the COVID-19 pandemic, terrorism, social unrest, and civil disturbances, may impair borrowers' abilities to repay their mortgage loans. In periods following home price declines, "strategic defaults" (decisions by borrowers to default on their mortgage loans despite having the ability to pay) also may become more prevalent. In addition, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or "TCJA," reduced the mortgage interest deduction limit, eliminated the deduction for interest with respect to home equity indebtedness, with certain exceptions, and limited the state and local income and property tax deduction. These changes could reduce home affordability and adversely impact housing prices in certain regions, which could lead to an increase in defaults on the mortgage loans underlying many of our investments.

In the event of defaults under mortgage loans backing any of our non-Agency RMBS, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan.

Additionally, in the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan. If borrowers default on the mortgage loans backing our non-Agency RMBS and we are unable to recover any resulting loss through the foreclosure process, our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders, could be materially adversely affected.

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

Many of the non-Agency RMBS in which we invest are collateralized by Alt-A and subprime mortgage loans, which are mortgage loans that were originated using less stringent underwriting guidelines than those used in underwriting prime mortgage loans (mortgage loans that generally conform to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac underwriting guidelines). In addition, we have acquired, and may acquire in the future, European RMBS, including retained tranches from European RMBS securitizations in which we have participated. These European RMBS are backed by residential mortgage loans that were typically originated using less stringent underwriting guidelines. These underwriting guidelines were more permissive as to borrower credit history or credit score, borrower debt-to-income ratio, loan-to-value ratio, and/or as to documentation (such as whether and to what extent borrower income was required to be disclosed or verified). In addition, even when specific underwriting guidelines were represented by loan originators as having been used in connection with the origination of mortgage loans, these guidelines were in many cases not followed as a result of aggressive lending practices, fraud (including borrower or appraisal fraud), or other factors. Mortgage loans that were underwritten pursuant to less stringent or looser underwriting guidelines, or that were poorly underwritten to their stated guidelines, have experienced, and should be expected to experience in the future, substantially higher rates of delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures than those experienced by mortgage loans that were underwritten in a manner more consistent with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines. Thus, because of the higher delinquency rates and losses associated with Alt-A, subprime mortgage loans and European mortgage loans, the performance of RMBS backed by Alt-A, subprime mortgage loans, and European mortgage loans that we may acquire could be correspondingly adversely affected, which could adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Table of Contents

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

Our Manager relies on the analytical models (both proprietary and third-party models) of Ellington and information and data supplied by third parties. These models and data may be used to value assets or potential asset acquisitions and dispositions and also in connection with our asset management activities. If Ellington's models and data prove to be incorrect, misleading, or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon could expose us to potential risks. Our Manager's reliance on Ellington's models and data may induce it to purchase certain assets at prices that are too high, to sell certain other assets at prices that are too low, or to miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging activities that are based on faulty models and data may prove to be unsuccessful.

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

•collateral cash flows and/or liability structures may be incorrectly modeled in all or only certain scenarios, or may be modeled based on simplifying assumptions that lead to errors;

•information about assets or the underlying collateral may be incorrect, incomplete, or misleading;

•asset, collateral or MBS historical performance (such as historical prepayments, defaults, cash flows, etc.) may be incorrectly reported, or subject to interpretation (e.g., different MBS issuers may report delinquency statistics based on different definitions of what constitutes a delinquent loan); and

•asset, collateral or MBS information may be outdated, in which case the models may contain incorrect assumptions as to what has occurred since the date information was last updated.

Some models, such as prepayment models or default models, may be predictive in nature. The use of predictive models has inherent risks. For example, such models may incorrectly forecast future behavior, leading to potential losses. In addition, the predictive models used by our Manager may differ substantially from those models used by other market participants, with the result that valuations based on these predictive models may be substantially higher or lower for certain assets than actual market prices. Furthermore, because predictive models are usually constructed based on historical data supplied by third parties, the success of relying on such models may depend heavily on the accuracy and reliability of the supplied historical data, and, in the case of predicting performance in scenarios with little or no historical precedent (such as extreme broad-based declines in home prices, deep economic recessions or depressions, or pandemics), such models must employ greater degrees of extrapolation and are therefore more speculative and of more limited reliability.

All valuation models rely on correct market data inputs. If incorrect market data is entered into even a well-founded valuation model, the resulting valuations will be incorrect. However, even if market data is input correctly, "model prices" will often differ substantially from market prices, especially for securities with complex characteristics or whose values are particularly sensitive to various factors. If our market data inputs are incorrect or our model prices differ substantially from market prices, our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected.

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

The values of some of the assets in our portfolio are not readily determinable. We value these assets monthly at fair value, as determined in good faith by our Manager, subject to the oversight of our Manager's valuation committee. Because such valuations are inherently uncertain, may fluctuate over short periods of time and may be based on estimates, our Manager's determinations of fair value may differ from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these assets existed or from the prices at which trades occur. Furthermore, we may not obtain third-party valuations for all of our assets. Changes in the fair value of our assets directly impact our net income through recording unrealized appreciation or depreciation of our investments and derivative instruments, and so our Manager's determination of fair value has a material impact on our net income.

While in many cases our Manager's determination of the fair value of our assets is based on valuations provided by third-party dealers and pricing services, our Manager can and does value assets based upon its judgment and such valuations may differ from those provided by third-party dealers and pricing services. Valuations of certain assets are often difficult to obtain or are unreliable. In general, dealers and pricing services heavily disclaim their valuations. Additionally, dealers and pricing services may claim to furnish valuations only as an accommodation and without special compensation, and so they may disclaim any and all liability for any direct, incidental, or consequential damages arising out of any inaccuracy or incompleteness in valuations, including any act of negligence or breach of any warranty. Depending on the complexity and

Table of Contents

illiquidity of an asset, valuations of the same asset can vary substantially from one dealer or pricing service to another. Higher valuations of our assets have the effect of increasing the amount of base management fees and incentive fees we pay to our Manager. Therefore, conflicts of interest exist because our Manager is involved in the determination of the fair value of our assets.

Market-based inputs are generally the preferred source of values for purposes of measuring the fair value of our assets under U.S. GAAP. However, the markets for our investments have experienced, and could in the future experience, extreme volatility, reduced transaction volume and liquidity, and disruption as a result of certain events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which has made, and could in the future make, it more difficult for our Manager, and for the third-party dealers and pricing services that we use, to rely on market-based inputs in connection with the valuation of our assets under U.S. GAAP. Furthermore, in determining the fair value of our assets, our Manager uses proprietary models that require the use of a significant amount of judgment and the application of various assumptions including, but not limited to, assumptions concerning future prepayment rates, interest rates, default rates and loss severities. These assumptions might be especially difficult to project accurately during periods of economic disruption. The fair value of certain of our investments may fluctuate over short periods of time, and our Manager’s determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these investments existed.

Our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected if our Manager's fair value determinations of these assets were materially different from the values that would exist if a ready market existed for these assets.

We depend on third-party service providers, including mortgage servicers, for a variety of services related to our non-Agency RMBS, European assets, securitizations, and whole mortgage loans and loan pools. We are, therefore, subject to the risks associated with third-party service providers.

We depend on a variety of services provided by third-party service providers related to our non-Agency RMBS, European assets, securitizations, and whole mortgage loans and loan pools. We rely on the mortgage servicers who service the mortgage loans backing our non-Agency RMBS, our European assets, our securitizations, as well as the mortgage loans and loan pools that we own directly, to, among other things, collect principal and interest payments on the underlying mortgages and perform loss mitigation services. These mortgage servicers and other service providers to our non-Agency RMBS, European assets, and securitizations, such as trustees, bond insurance providers, due diligence vendors, and custodians, may not perform in a manner that promotes our interests. In addition, legislation that has been enacted or that may be enacted in order to reduce or prevent foreclosures through, among other things, loan modifications, may reduce the value of mortgage loans backing our non-Agency RMBS or whole mortgage loans that we acquire. Mortgage servicers may be incentivized by U.S. federal, state, or local governments to pursue such loan modifications, as well as forbearance plans and other actions intended to prevent foreclosure, even if such loan modifications and other actions are not in the best interests of the beneficial owners of the mortgage loans. In addition to legislation that creates financial incentives for mortgage loan servicers to modify loans and take other actions that are intended to prevent foreclosures, legislation has also been adopted that creates a safe harbor from liability to creditors for servicers that undertake loan modifications and other actions that are intended to prevent foreclosures. Finally, legislation has been adopted that delays the initiation or completion of foreclosure proceedings on specified types of residential mortgage loans or otherwise limits the ability of mortgage servicers to take actions that may be essential to preserve the value of the mortgage loans underlying the mortgage servicing rights. Any such limitations are likely to cause delayed or reduced collections from mortgagors and generally increase servicing costs. As a result of these legislative actions, the mortgage loan servicers on which we rely may not perform in our best interests or up to our expectations. If our third-party service providers, including mortgage servicers, do not perform as expected, our business, financial condition and results of operations, and ability to pay dividends to our stockholders may be materially adversely affected.

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

Both default frequency and default severity of mortgage loans are highly dependent on the quality of the mortgage servicer. We depend on the loss mitigation efforts of mortgage servicers and in some cases "special servicers," which are mortgage servicers who specialize in servicing non-performing loans. If mortgage servicers are not vigilant in encouraging borrowers to make their monthly payments, the borrowers are far less likely to make those payments. In addition, for the whole mortgage loans that we own directly, we may engage in our own loss mitigation efforts over and beyond the efforts of the mortgage servicers, including more hands-on mortgage servicer oversight and management, borrower refinancing solicitations, as well as other efforts. Our and our mortgage servicers' loss mitigation efforts may be unsuccessful in limiting delinquencies, defaults, and losses, or may not be cost effective, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. Furthermore, our ability to accomplish such loss mitigation may be limited by the tax rules governing REITs.

Table of Contents

We may be affected by deficiencies in foreclosure practices of third parties, as well as related delays in the foreclosure process.

Following the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, one of the biggest risks affecting the residential mortgage loan, non-Agency RMBS, and European RMBS markets has been uncertainty around the timing and ability of servicers to foreclose on defaulted loans, so that they can liquidate the underlying properties and ultimately pass the liquidation proceeds through to RMBS holders. Given the magnitude of the 2008-2009 housing crisis, and in response to the well-publicized failures of many servicers to follow proper foreclosure procedures, mortgage servicers are being held to much higher foreclosure-related documentation standards than they previously were. However, because many mortgages have been transferred and assigned multiple times (and by means of varying assignment procedures) throughout the origination, warehouse, and securitization processes, mortgage servicers have generally had much more difficulty furnishing the requisite documentation to initiate or complete foreclosures. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has led, and could continue to lead, to delays in the foreclosure process, both by operation of state law (e.g., foreclosure moratoriums in certain states) and by delays in the judicial system. These circumstances have led to stalled or suspended foreclosure proceedings, and ultimately additional foreclosure-related costs. Foreclosure-related delays also tend to increase ultimate loan loss severities as a result of property deterioration, amplified legal and other costs, and other factors. Many factors delaying foreclosure, such as borrower lawsuits and judicial backlog and scrutiny, are outside of a servicer's control and have delayed, and will likely continue to delay, foreclosure processing in both judicial states (where foreclosures require court involvement) and non-judicial states. The concerns about deficiencies in foreclosure practices of servicers and related delays in the foreclosure process may impact our loss assumptions and has affected and may continue to affect the values of, and our returns on, our investments in RMBS and residential whole loans.

To the extent that due diligence is conducted on potential assets, such due diligence may not reveal all of the risks associated with such assets and may not reveal other weaknesses in such assets, which could lead to losses.

Before making an investment, our Manager may decide to conduct (either directly or using third parties) certain due diligence. There can be no assurance that our Manager will conduct any specific level of due diligence, or that, among other things, our Manager's due diligence processes will uncover all relevant facts or that any purchase will be successful, which could result in losses on these assets, which, in turn, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

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

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

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

Certain securities that we acquire are deemed by rating agencies to have substantial vulnerability to default in payment of interest and/or principal. Other securities we acquire have the lowest quality ratings or are unrated. Many securities that we acquire are subordinated in cash flow priority to other more "senior" securities of the same securitization. The exposure to defaults on the underlying mortgages is severely magnified in subordinated securities. Certain subordinated securities ("first loss securities") absorb all losses from default before any other class of securities is at risk. Such securities therefore are considered to be highly speculative investments. Also, the risk of declining real estate values, in particular, is amplified in subordinated RMBS and CMBS, as are the risks associated with possible changes in the market's perception of the entity issuing or guaranteeing them, or by changes in government regulations and tax policies. Accordingly, the subordinated and lower-rated (or unrated) securities in which we invest may experience significant price and performance volatility relative to more senior or higher-rated securities, and they are subject to greater risk of loss than more senior or higher-rated securities which, if realized, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to

Table of Contents

pay dividends to our stockholders.

Investments in second lien mortgage loans could subject us to increased risk of losses.

We may invest in second-lien mortgage loans or RMBS backed by such loans. If a borrower defaults on a second-lien mortgage loan or on its senior debt (i.e., a first-lien loan, in the case of a residential mortgage loan), or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, such loan will be satisfied only after all senior debt is paid in full. As a result, if we invest in second-lien mortgage loans and the borrower defaults, we may lose all or a significant part of our investment.

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

The frequency at which prepayments (including both voluntary prepayments by borrowers and liquidations due to defaults and foreclosures) occur on mortgage loans, including those underlying our RMBS, is affected by a variety of factors, including the prevailing level of interest rates as well as economic, demographic, tax, social, legal, and other factors. Generally, borrowers tend to prepay their mortgages when prevailing mortgage rates fall below the interest rates on their mortgage loans. When borrowers prepay their mortgage loans at rates that are faster or slower than expected, it results in prepayments that are faster or slower than expected on such loans or the related RMBS. These faster or slower than expected payments may adversely affect our profitability.

We may purchase securities or loans that have a higher interest rate than the then-prevailing market interest rate. In exchange for this higher interest rate, we may pay a premium to par value to acquire the security or loan. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, we amortize this premium as an expense over the expected term of the security or loan based on our prepayment assumptions. If a security or loan is prepaid in whole or in part at a faster than expected rate, however, we must expense all or a part of the remaining unamortized portion of the premium that was paid at the time of the purchase, which will adversely affect our profitability.

We also may purchase securities or loans that have a lower interest rate than the then-prevailing market interest rate. In exchange for this lower interest rate, we may pay a discount to par value to acquire the security or loan. We accrete this discount as income over the expected term of the security or loan based on our prepayment assumptions. If a security or loan is prepaid at a slower than expected rate, however, we must accrete the remaining portion of the discount at a slower than expected rate. This will extend the expected life of our investment portfolio and result in a lower than expected yield on securities and loans purchased at a discount to par.

Prepayment rates generally increase when interest rates fall and decrease when interest rates rise. Since many RMBS, especially fixed rate RMBS, will be discount securities when interest rates are high, and will be premium securities when interest rates are low, these RMBS may be adversely affected by changes in prepayments in any interest rate environment. Prepayment rates are also affected by factors not directly tied to interest rates, and these factors are difficult to predict. Prepayments can also occur when borrowers sell their properties or when borrowers default on their mortgages and the mortgages are prepaid from the proceeds of a foreclosure sale of the underlying property and/or from the proceeds of a mortgage insurance policy or other guarantee. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will generally, among other conditions, purchase mortgages that are 120 days or more delinquent from the Agency RMBS pools that they have issued when the cost of guaranteed payments to security holders, including advances of interest at the security coupon rate, exceeds the cost of holding the non-performing loans in their portfolios. Consequently, prepayment rates also may be affected by conditions in the housing and financial markets, which may result in increased delinquencies on mortgage loans. Prepayment rates can also be affected by actions of the GSEs and their cost of capital, general economic conditions, and the relative interest rates on fixed and adjustable rate loans. Additionally, changes in the GSEs' decisions as to when to repurchase delinquent loans can materially impact prepayment rates on Agency RMBS.

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

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

Our fixed rate investments, especially most fixed rate mortgage loans, fixed rate MBS, and most MBS backed by fixed

Table of Contents

rate mortgage loans, decline in value when long-term interest rates increase. Even in the case of Agency RMBS, the guarantees provided by GSEs do not protect us from declines in market value caused by changes in interest rates. In the case of RMBS backed by adjustable rate mortgages, or "ARMs," increases in interest rates can lead to increases in delinquencies and defaults as borrowers become less able to make their mortgage payments following interest payment resets. Additionally, an increase in short-term interest rates would increase the amount of interest owed on our repo borrowings. See "—Interest rate mismatches between our assets and our borrowings may reduce our income during periods of changing interest rates, and increases in interest rates could adversely affect the value of our assets" below.

An increase in interest rates may cause a decrease in the issuance volumes of certain of our targeted assets, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire targeted assets that satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and pay dividends.

Rising interest rates generally reduce the demand for mortgage loans due to the higher cost of borrowing. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans originated may affect the volume of targeted assets available to us, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives. If rising interest rates cause us to be unable to acquire a sufficient volume of our targeted assets with a yield that is above our borrowing cost, our ability to satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and pay dividends to our stockholders may be materially and adversely affected.

Interest rate caps on the ARMs and hybrid ARMs that back our RMBS may reduce our net interest margin during periods of rising or high interest rates.

ARMs and hybrid ARMs (i.e., residential mortgage loans that have interest rates that are fixed for a specified period of time (typically three, five, seven or ten years) and, thereafter, adjust to a fixed increment over a specified interest rate index) 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 through the maturity of the loan. Our borrowings typically are not subject to similar restrictions. Accordingly, in a period of rapidly increasing interest rates, our financing costs could increase without limitation while caps could limit the interest we earn on our RMBS backed by ARMs and hybrid ARMs. This problem is magnified for ARMs and hybrid ARMs that are not fully indexed because such periodic interest rate caps prevent the coupon on the security from fully reaching the specified rate in one reset. Further, some ARMs and hybrid ARMs may be subject to periodic payment caps that result in a portion of the interest being deferred and added to the principal outstanding. As a result, we may receive less cash income on RMBS backed by ARMs and hybrid ARMs than necessary to pay interest on our related borrowings. Interest rate caps on RMBS backed by ARMs and hybrid ARMs could reduce our net interest margin if interest rates were to increase beyond the level of the caps, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Residential mortgage loans, including residential NPLs, non-QM loans, and residential transition loans, are subject to increased risks.

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

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

If we subsequently resell any whole mortgage loans that we acquire, we may be required to repurchase such loans or indemnify purchasers if we breach representations and warranties.

If we subsequently resell any whole mortgage loans that we acquire, we would generally be required to make customary

Table of Contents

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

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

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

•tenant mix;

•declines in tenant income and/or changes to tenant businesses;

•property management decisions;

•property location, condition, and design;

•new construction of competitive properties;

•changes in laws that increase operating expenses or limit rents that may be charged;

•changes in national, regional, or local economic conditions and/or specific industry segments, including the credit and securitization markets;

•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;

•costs of remediation and liabilities associated with environmental conditions;

•the potential for uninsured or underinsured property losses;

•changes in governmental laws and regulations, including fiscal policies, zoning ordinances and environmental legislation, and the related costs of compliance; and

•acts of God, pandemics such as the COVID-19 pandemic, terrorist attacks, 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 to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and our cost basis in the outstanding principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan, and any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

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.

CMBS are secured by a single commercial mortgage loan or a pool of commercial mortgage loans. Accordingly, the CMBS we invest in are subject to all of the risks of the respective underlying commercial mortgage loans.

Our investments in CMBS are at risk of loss.

Our investments in CMBS are at risk of loss. In general, losses on real estate securing a mortgage loan included in a securitization will be borne first by the owner of the property, then by the holder of a mezzanine loan or a subordinated participation interest in a bifurcated first lien loan, or "B-Note," if any, then by the "first loss" subordinated security holder (generally, the B-piece buyer) and then by the holder of a higher-rated security. In the event of losses on mortgage loans

Table of Contents

included in a securitization and the subsequent exhaustion of any applicable reserve fund, letter of credit, or classes of securities junior to those in which we invest, we may not be able to recover all of our investment in the securities we purchase. In addition, if any of the real estate underlying the securitization mortgage portfolio has been overvalued by the originator, or if real estate values subsequently decline and, as a result, less collateral is available to satisfy interest and principal payments due on the related CMBS, we may incur losses. The prices of lower credit quality securities are generally less sensitive to interest rate changes than more highly rated investments, but more sensitive to adverse economic downturns or individual issuer developments.

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

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

A portion of our investments currently are, and in the future may be, in the form of non-performing and sub-performing commercial and residential mortgage loans, or loans that may become non-performing or sub-performing, which are subject to increased risks relative to performing loans.

A portion of our investments currently are, and in the future may be, in the form of commercial and residential whole mortgage loans, including subprime mortgage loans and non-performing and sub-performing mortgage loans, which are subject to increased risks of loss. Such loans may already be, or may become, non-performing or sub-performing for a variety of reasons, including because the underlying property is too highly leveraged or the borrower falls upon financial distress. Such non-performing or sub-performing loans may require a substantial amount of workout negotiations and/or restructuring, which may divert the attention of our Manager from other activities and entail, among other things, a substantial reduction in the interest rate, capitalization of interest payments, and a substantial write-down of the principal of the loan. However, even if such restructuring were successfully accomplished, a risk exists that the borrower will not be able or willing to maintain the restructured payments or refinance the restructured mortgage upon maturity. In addition, such modifications could affect our compliance with the tests applicable to REITs, including by increasing our distribution requirement.

In addition, certain non-performing or sub-performing loans that we acquire may have been originated by financial institutions that are or may become insolvent, suffer from serious financial stress, or are no longer in existence. As a result, the standards by which such loans were originated, the recourse to the selling institution, and/or the standards by which such loans are being serviced or operated may be adversely affected. Further, loans on properties operating under the close supervision of a mortgage lender are, in certain circumstances, subject to certain additional potential liabilities that may exceed the value of our investment.

In the future, it is possible that we may find it necessary or desirable to foreclose on some, if not many, of the loans we acquire, and the foreclosure process may be lengthy and expensive. Borrowers or junior lenders may resist mortgage foreclosure actions by asserting numerous claims, counterclaims, and defenses against us including, without limitation, numerous lender liability claims and defenses, even when such assertions may have no basis in fact, in an effort to prolong the foreclosure action and force the lender into a modification of the loan or capital structure or a favorable buy-out of the borrower's or junior lender's position. In some states, foreclosure actions can sometimes take several years or more to litigate. At any time prior to or during the foreclosure proceedings, the borrower may file, or a junior lender may cause the borrower to file, for bankruptcy, which would have the effect of staying the foreclosure actions and further delaying the foreclosure process. Foreclosure and associated litigation may create a negative public perception of the related mortgaged property, resulting in a diminution of its value. Even if we are successful in foreclosing on a loan, the liquidation proceeds upon sale of the underlying real estate may not be sufficient to recover our cost basis in the loan, resulting in a loss to us, and the borrower or junior lenders may continue to challenge whether the foreclosure process was commercially reasonable, which could result in additional costs and potential liability. Any costs or delays involved in the effectuation of a foreclosure of the loan or a liquidation of the underlying property, or defending challenges brought after the completion of a foreclosure, will further reduce the liquidation proceeds and thus increase the loss. Any such reductions could materially and adversely affect the value we realize from the loans in which we invest.

Table of Contents

Whether or not our Manager has participated in the negotiation of the terms of any such mortgage loans, there can be no assurance as to the adequacy of the protection of the terms of the loan, including the validity or enforceability of the loan and the maintenance of the anticipated priority and perfection of the applicable security interests. Furthermore, claims may be asserted that might interfere with enforcement of our rights. In the event of a foreclosure, we may assume direct ownership of the underlying real estate. The liquidation proceeds upon sale of such real estate may not be sufficient to recover our cost basis in the loan, resulting in a loss to us.

Commercial whole mortgage loans are also subject to special hazard risk and to bankruptcy risk. In addition, claims may be assessed against us on account of our position as mortgage holder or property owner, including assignee liability, responsibility for tax payments, environmental hazards and other liabilities. In some cases, these liabilities may be "recourse liabilities" or may otherwise lead to losses in excess of the purchase price of the related mortgage or property.

Our real estate assets and our real estate-related assets (including mortgage loans and MBS) are subject to the risks associated with real property.

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

•declines in the value of real estate;

•acts of God, including pandemics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, earthquakes, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, mudslides, volcanic eruptions 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 zoning ordinances;

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

•potential liabilities for other legal actions related to property ownership including tort claims; and

•the potential for uninsured or under-insured property losses.

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

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

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

We use leverage in executing our business strategy, which may adversely affect the return on our assets and may reduce cash available for distribution to our stockholders, as well as increase losses when economic conditions are unfavorable.

We use leverage to finance our investment activities and to enhance our financial returns. Most of our leverage is in the form of short-term repos for our Agency and credit portfolio assets. Other forms of leverage include our term secured bank facilities, our securitizations, our Senior Notes, and may in the future include credit facilities, including term loans and revolving credit facilities.

Through the use of leverage, we may acquire positions with market exposure significantly greater than the amount of capital committed to the transaction. For example, by entering into repos with haircut levels, of 5%, we could theoretically leverage capital allocated to Agency RMBS by an asset-to-equity ratio of as much as 20 to 1. A haircut is the percentage discount that a repo lender applies to the market value of an asset serving as collateral for a repo borrowing, for the purpose of determining whether such repo borrowing is adequately collateralized.

Table of Contents

Although we may from time to time enter into certain contracts with third parties that may limit our leverage, such as certain financing arrangements with lenders, our governing documents do not specifically limit the amount of leverage that we may use. Leverage can enhance our potential returns but can also exacerbate losses. Even if an asset increases in value, if the asset fails to earn a return that equals or exceeds our cost of borrowing, the leverage will diminish our returns.

Leverage also increases the risk of our being forced to precipitously liquidate our assets. See "—Our access to financing sources, which may not be available on favorable terms, or at all, may be limited, and our lenders and derivative counterparties may require us to post additional collateral. These circumstances may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders" below.

Our access to financing sources, which may not be available on favorable terms, or at all, may be limited, and our lenders and derivative counterparties may require us to post additional collateral. These circumstances may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Our ability to fund our operations, meet financial obligations, and finance targeted asset acquisitions may be impacted by an inability to secure and maintain our financing through repurchase agreements or other borrowings with our counterparties. Because repurchase agreements are generally short-term transactions, lenders may respond to adverse market conditions in a manner that makes it more difficult for us to renew or replace on a continuous basis our maturing short-term borrowings and have, and may continue to, impose more onerous conditions when rolling such repurchase agreements.

Our lenders are primarily large global financial institutions, with exposures both to global financial markets and to more localized conditions. In addition to borrowing from large banks, we borrow from smaller non-bank financial institutions. Whether because of a global or local financial crisis or other circumstances, such as if one or more of our lenders experiences severe financial difficulties, they or other lenders could become unwilling or unable to provide us with financing, could increase the haircut required for such financing, or could increase the costs of that financing.

Moreover, we are currently party to short-term borrowings (in the form of repos) and there can be no assurance that we will be able to replace these borrowings, or "roll" them, as they mature on a continuous basis and it may be more difficult for us to obtain debt financing on favorable terms, or at all. If we are not able to renew our existing repurchase agreements or other borrowings, or arrange for new financing on terms acceptable to us, or if we default on our financial covenants (including those on our repurchase agreements, other borrowings, and our Senior Notes), are otherwise unable to access funds under our financing arrangements, or if we are required to post more collateral or face larger haircuts, we may have to dispose of assets at significantly depressed prices and at inopportune times, which could cause significant losses, and may also force us to curtail our asset acquisition activities. Similarly, if we were to move a financing from one counterparty to another that was subject to a larger haircut we would have to repay more cash to the original repurchase agreement counterparty than we would be able to borrow from the new repurchase agreement counterparty. To the extent that we might be compelled to liquidate qualifying real estate assets to repay debts, our compliance with the REIT asset tests, income tests, and distribution requirements could be negatively affected, which could jeopardize our qualification as a REIT. Losing our REIT qualification would cause us to be subject to U.S. federal income tax (and any applicable state and local taxes) on all of our income and decrease profitability and cash available to pay dividends to our stockholders. Any such forced liquidations could also materially adversely affect our ability to maintain our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

In addition, if there is a contraction in the overall availability of financing for our assets, including if the regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders change, our lenders may significantly increase the cost of the financing that they provide to us, or increase the amounts of collateral they require as a condition to providing us with financing. Our lenders also have revised, and may continue to revise, their eligibility requirements for the types of assets that they are willing to finance or the terms of such financing arrangements, including increased haircuts and requiring additional cash collateral, based on, among other factors, the regulatory environment and their management of actual and perceived risk, particularly with respect to assignee liability.

Moreover, the amount of financing that we receive under our financing agreements will be directly related to our lenders’ valuation of the financed assets subject to such agreements. Typically, the master repurchase agreements that govern our borrowings under repurchase agreements grant the lender the right to reevaluate the fair market value of the financed assets subject to such repurchase agreements at any time. If a lender determines that the net decrease in the value of the portfolio of financed assets is greater in magnitude than any applicable threshold, it will generally initiate a margin call. In such cases, a lender's valuations of the financed assets may be different than the values that we ascribe to these assets and may be influenced by recent asset sales at distressed levels by forced sellers. A valid margin call requires us to transfer additional cash or qualifying assets to a lender without any advance of funds from the lender for such transfer or to repay a portion of the outstanding borrowings. If a lender under one of our repo agreements were to send us a notice of default, even if we were to dispute the validity of a margin call from the lender, such lender will have possession of the financed assets, and might still

Table of Contents

decide to exercise its contractual remedies. In the event of our default, our lenders or derivative counterparties can accelerate our indebtedness, terminate our derivative contracts (potentially on unfavorable terms requiring additional payments, including additional fees and costs), increase our borrowing rates, liquidate our collateral, and terminate our ability to borrow. In certain cases, a default on one repo agreement or derivative agreement (whether caused by a failure to satisfy margin calls or another event of default) can trigger "cross defaults" on other such agreements. In addition, if the market value of our derivative contracts with a derivative counterparty declines in value, we generally will be subject to a margin call by the derivative counterparty.

Significant margin calls and/or increased repo haircuts could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, business, liquidity, and ability to make distributions to our stockholders, and could cause the value of our capital stock to decline. During March and April of 2020, we observed that many of our financing agreement counterparties assigned lower valuations to certain of our assets, resulting in us having to pay cash or transfer additional securities to satisfy margin calls, which were higher than historical levels. In addition, during March and April of 2020 we also experienced an increase in haircuts on repurchase agreements that we rolled. A sufficiently deep and/or rapid increase in margin calls or haircuts would have an adverse impact on our liquidity.

Consequently, depending on market conditions at the relevant time, we may have to rely on additional equity issuances to meet our capital and financing needs, which may be dilutive to our stockholders, or we may have to rely on less efficient forms of debt financing that consume a larger portion of our cash flow from operations, thereby reducing funds available for our operations, future business opportunities, cash dividends to our stockholders, and other purposes. We cannot assure you that we will have access to such equity or debt capital on favorable terms (including, without limitation, cost and term) at the desired times, or at all, which may cause us to curtail our asset acquisition activities and/or dispose of assets, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders, or in the worst case, cause our insolvency.

A failure to comply with restrictive covenants in our financing arrangements would have a material adverse effect on us, and any future financings may require us to provide additional collateral or pay down debt.

We are subject to various restrictive covenants contained in our existing financing arrangements and may become subject to additional covenants in connection with future financings. For example, the indenture governing our Senior Notes contains covenants that, subject to a number of exceptions and adjustments, among other things: limit our ability to incur additional indebtedness; require us to maintain a minimum Net Asset Value (as defined in the indenture governing the Senior Notes); require us to maintain a ratio of Consolidated Unencumbered Assets (as defined in indenture governing the Senior Notes) to the aggregate principal amount of the outstanding Senior Notes at or above a specified threshold, and impose certain conditions on our merger or consolidation with another person. In addition, the interest rate on our Senior Notes is subject to upward adjustment based on certain changes, if any, in the ratings of the Senior Notes. Furthermore, several of our repo agreements contain financial covenants of a similar nature, including requiring us to maintain a minimum level of liquidity and a minimum level of equity.

The covenants in our financing arrangements may limit our flexibility to pursue certain investments or incur additional debt. If we fail to meet or satisfy any of these covenants, subject to certain cure provisions, as applicable, we would be in default under these agreements and our indebtedness could be declared due and payable. In addition, our lenders could terminate their commitments, require the posting of additional collateral and enforce their interests against existing collateral. We may also be subject to cross-default and acceleration rights under our financing arrangements, whereby a default (such as a failure to comply with a covenant) under one financing arrangement can trigger a default under other financing arrangements.

Our securitizations may expose us to additional risks.

In order to generate additional cash for funding new investments, we have securitized, and may in the future seek to securitize, certain of our assets, especially our loan assets. Some securitizations are treated as financing transactions for U.S. GAAP, while others are treated as sales. In a typical securitization, we convey assets to a special purpose vehicle, which then issues one or more classes of notes secured by the assets pursuant to the terms of an indenture. To the extent that we retain the most subordinated economic interests in the issuing vehicle, we would continue to be exposed to losses on the assets for as long as those retained interests remained outstanding and therefore able to absorb such losses. Furthermore, our retained interests in a securitization could be less liquid than the underlying assets themselves, and may be subject to U.S. Risk Retention Rules (See "—We, Ellington, or its affiliates may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory changes," below) and similar European rules. Moreover, even though we might accumulate assets with a view towards possible securitization, we cannot be assured that we will be able to access the securitization market, or be able to do so under favorable terms. The inability to securitize certain segments of our portfolio, especially certain of our loan assets, could force us to resort to inferior methods of financing those assets, could force us to sell those loan assets at inopportune times, and could adversely impact our ability to grow our loan acquisition businesses.

Table of Contents

In addition, in anticipation of a securitization transaction, we (either alone or in conjunction with other investors, including other Ellington affiliates) have in the past, and may again in the future, provide capital to a vehicle accumulating assets for the securitization. If such a securitization is not ultimately completed, or if the assets do not perform as expected during the accumulation period, we could lose all or a portion of the capital that we provided to the vehicle. Furthermore, because we may enter into these types of transactions along with other investors, including other Ellington affiliates, there may be conflicts between us, on the one hand, and the other investors, including other Ellington affiliates, on the other hand. These accumulation vehicles typically enter into warehouse financing facilities to facilitate their accumulation of assets, and so such vehicles carry with them the additional risks associated with financial leverage and covenant compliance.

In connection with our securitizations, we generally are required to prepare disclosure documentation for investors, including term sheets and offering memoranda, which contain information regarding the securitization generally, the securities being issued, and the assets being securitized. If our disclosure documentation for a securitization is alleged or found to contain material inaccuracies or omissions, we may be liable under federal securities laws, state securities laws or other applicable laws for damages to the investors in such securitization, we may be required to indemnify the underwriters of the securitization or other parties, and/or we may incur other expenses and costs in connection with disputing these allegations or settling claims. Such liabilities, expenses, and/or losses could be significant.

We will typically be required to make representations and warranties in connection with our securitizations regarding, among other things, certain characteristics of the assets being securitized. If any of the representations and warranties that we have made concerning the assets are alleged or found to be inaccurate, we may incur expenses disputing the allegations, and we may be obligated to repurchase certain assets, which may result in losses. Even if we previously obtained representations and warranties from loan originators or other parties from whom we originally acquired the assets, such representations and warranties may not align with those that we have made for the benefit of the securitization, or may otherwise not protect us from losses (e.g., because of a deterioration in the financial condition of the party that provided representations and warranties to us).

Interest rate mismatches between our assets and our borrowings may reduce our income during periods of changing interest rates, and increases in interest rates could adversely affect the value of our assets.

Some of our assets are fixed rate or have a fixed rate component (such as RMBS backed by hybrid ARMs). This means that the interest we earn on these assets will not vary over time based upon changes in a short-term interest rate index. Although the interest we earn on our ARM loans and our RMBS backed by ARMs generally will adjust for changing interest rates, such interest rate adjustments may not occur as quickly as the interest rate adjustments to any related borrowings, and such interest rate adjustments will generally be subject to interest rate caps, which potentially could cause such RMBS to acquire many of the characteristics of fixed rate assets if interest rates were to rise above the cap levels. We generally fund our targeted assets with borrowings whose interest rates reset frequently, and as a result we generally have an interest rate mismatch between our assets and liabilities. While our interest rate hedges are intended to mitigate a portion of this mismatch, the use of interest rate hedges also introduces the risk of other interest rate mismatches and exposures, as will the use of other financing techniques. Additionally, to the extent cash flows from RMBS we hold are reinvested in new RMBS, the spread between the yields of the new RMBS and available borrowing rates may decline, which could reduce our net interest margin or result in losses.

Fixed income assets, including many RMBS, typically decline in value if interest rates increase. If long-term rates were to increase significantly, not only would the market value of these assets be expected to decline, but these assets could lengthen in duration because borrowers would be less likely to prepay their mortgages.

Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political considerations, and other factors beyond our control. During 2020, in response to the negative economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Federal Reserve, or the "Federal Reserve," decreased the target range for the federal funds rate from 1.50%—1.75% to 0.00%—0.25%. Prior to 2019, the Federal Reserve had been increasing the target range for the federal funds rate, from December 2015 through December 2018. The future path of interest rates is highly uncertain, and increases could occur in the near future.

While we opportunistically hedge our exposure to changes in interest rates, such hedging may be limited by our intention to remain qualified as a REIT, and we can provide no assurance that our hedges will be successful, or that we will be able to enter into or maintain such hedges. As a result, interest rate fluctuations can cause significant losses, reductions in income, and can limit the cash available to pay dividends to our stockholders.

The anticipated discontinuation of LIBOR and transition from LIBOR to an alternative reference rate may adversely affect the value and liquidity of the financial obligations to be held or issued by us that are linked to LIBOR.

Table of Contents

LIBOR is an indicative measure of the average interest rate at which major global banks could borrow from one another and is used extensively as a “benchmark” or “reference rate” for various financial and commercial contracts. LIBOR is quoted in multiple currencies and multiple time frames using data reported by private-sector banks.

On July 27, 2017, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, or the “FCA,” announced that it intends to phase out LIBOR by the end of 2021. It is unclear whether LIBOR will cease to exist at that time or whether new methods of calculating LIBOR will be established enabling LIBOR to continue to exist after 2021. On March 5, 2021, the ICE Benchmark Administration, (the current administrator of LIBOR), or the “IBA,” published a feedback statement stating that it would cease publishing USD LIBOR on December 31, 2021 for the one week and two month USD LIBOR tenors, and on June 30, 2023 for all other USD LIBOR tenors. In light of these recent announcements, the future of LIBOR at this time is uncertain and any changes in the methods by which LIBOR is determined, or any regulatory activity related to LIBOR’s phaseout, could cause LIBOR to behave differently than in the past or cease to exist. Although regulators and the IBA have made clear that the recent announcements should not be read to say that LIBOR has ceased or will cease, we cannot make assurances that LIBOR will survive in its current form, or at all.

In anticipation of the discontinuation of LIBOR in the U.S., the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, or the "ARRC," a group convened by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York consisting of large U.S. financial institutions, regulators and other private and public-sector entities, has identified the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or "SOFR," as its preferred alternative rate to take the place of US Dollar LIBOR. SOFR is a measure of the cost of borrowing cash overnight, collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities, and is based on directly observable U.S. Treasury-backed repurchase transactions. Although the U.S. Treasury-backed overnight repo market is highly liquid, there is currently no robust market for determining forward-looking, SOFR term rates. Additionally, certain of our LIBOR based contracts that may be in effect at the time of LIBOR discontinuation may not contain fallback language in the event LIBOR is unavailable or may not contain fallback language that contemplates the permanent discontinuation of LIBOR. Consequently, there is uncertainty as to how our LIBOR based financial instruments may react to its discontinuation.

It also is possible that not all of our LIBOR based assets and liabilities (including our derivatives) will transition away from LIBOR at the same time, and it is possible that not all of our assets and liabilities (including our derivatives) will transition to the same alternative reference rate, in each case increasing the difficulty of hedging. Switching existing financial instruments and hedging transactions from referencing LIBOR to SOFR requires calculations of a fixed spread to account for differences between LIBOR and SOFR. Industry organizations are attempting to structure the spread calculation in a manner that minimizes the possibility of value transfer between counterparties by virtue of the transition, but there is no assurance that the calculated spread will be fair and accurate or that similar financial instruments will use the same spread. We and other market participants have less experience understanding and modeling SOFR-based assets and liabilities than LIBOR-based assets and liabilities, increasing the difficulty of investing, hedging, and risk management. The process of transition may also involve operational risks. It is also possible that no transition will occur for certain financial instruments, meaning that those instruments would continue to be subject to the weaknesses of the LIBOR calculation process and/or, as is the potential case for our Series A Preferred Stock, that the determination of LIBOR would be dependent on banks voluntarily providing quotations of LIBOR to us based on specified procedures, which an insufficient number of banks may be willing or able to do, in which case the variable rate instrument could convert to a fixed-rate instrument based on the most recent rate in effect for the instrument. At this time, it is not possible to predict the effect of any such changes, any establishment of alternative reference rates or any other reforms to LIBOR that may be implemented. The nature of such potential changes, alternative reference rates or other reforms could adversely affect the market for or value of, any securities, loans, derivatives, and other financial instruments that are based directly or indirectly on LIBOR, and as a result may adversely affect our overall financial condition and results of operations.

Our investments that are denominated in foreign currencies subject us to foreign currency risk, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Our investments that are denominated in foreign currencies subject us to foreign currency risk arising from fluctuations in exchange rates between such foreign currencies and the U.S. dollar. While we currently attempt to hedge the vast majority of our foreign currency exposure, subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we may not always choose to hedge such exposure, or we may not be able to hedge such exposure. To the extent that we are exposed to foreign currency risk, changes in exchange rates of such foreign currencies to the U.S. dollar may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Table of Contents

Hedging against credit events, interest rate changes, foreign currency fluctuations, and other risks may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and maintaining our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we opportunistically pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to losses from adverse credit events, interest rate changes, foreign currency fluctuations, and other risks. Hedging against a decline in the values of our portfolio positions does not prevent losses if the values of such positions decline, nor does it eliminate the possibility of fluctuations in the value of our portfolio. Hedging transactions generally will limit the opportunity for gain should the values of our other portfolio positions increase. Further, certain hedging transactions could result in significant losses. Qualification as a REIT may require that we undertake certain hedging activities in a TRS. Our domestic TRSs are subject to U.S. federal, state, and local income tax. Moreover, at any point in time we may choose not to hedge all or a portion of our risks, and we generally will not hedge those risks that we believe are appropriate for us to take at such time, or that we believe would be impractical or prohibitively expensive to hedge. Even if we do choose to hedge certain risks, for a variety of reasons we generally will not seek to establish a perfect correlation between our hedging instruments and the risks being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the composition of our portfolio, our market views, and changing market conditions, including the level and volatility of interest rates. When we do choose to hedge, hedging may fail to protect or could materially adversely affect us because, among other things:

•our Manager may fail to correctly assess the degree of correlation between the hedging instruments and the assets being hedged;

•our Manager may fail to recalculate, re-adjust, and execute hedges in an efficient and timely manner;

•the hedging transactions may actually result in poorer overall performance for us than if we had not engaged in the hedging transactions;

•credit hedging can be expensive, particularly when the market is forecasting future credit deterioration and when markets are more illiquid;

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

•available hedges may not correspond directly with the risks for which protection is sought;

•the durations of the hedges may not match the durations of the related assets or liabilities being hedged;

•many hedges are structured as over-the-counter contracts with counterparties whose creditworthiness is not guaranteed, raising the possibility that the hedging counterparty may default on their payment obligations;

•to the extent that the creditworthiness of a hedging counterparty deteriorates, it may be difficult or impossible to terminate or assign any hedging transactions with such counterparty; and

•our hedging instruments are generally structured as derivative contracts and, as a result, are subject to additional risks such as those described above under "—Our access to financing sources, which may not be available on favorable terms, or at all, may be limited, and our lenders and derivative counterparties may require us to post additional collateral. These circumstances may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders." and below under "—Our use of derivatives may expose us to counterparty risk."

For these and other reasons, our hedging activity may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders, and our ability to maintain our qualification as a REIT.

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

Hedging instruments and other derivatives, including certain types of credit default swaps, involve risk because they may not, in many cases, be traded on exchanges and may not be guaranteed or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, for these instruments there may be less stringent requirements with respect to record keeping and compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. Our Manager is not restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of its transactions with one counterparty. Furthermore, our Manager has only a limited internal credit function to evaluate the creditworthiness of its counterparties, mainly relying on its experience with such counterparties and their general reputation as participants in these markets. The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in a default under the agreement governing the hedging arrangement. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction, may result in losses and may force us to re-initiate similar hedges

Table of Contents

with other counterparties at the then-prevailing market levels. Generally we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging transactions upon a counterparty's insolvency, but absent an actual insolvency, we may not be able to terminate a hedging transaction without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to assign or otherwise dispose of a hedging transaction to another counterparty without the consent of both the original hedging counterparty and the potential assignee. If we terminate a hedging transaction, we may not be able to enter into a replacement contract in order to cover our risk. There can be no assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and therefore we may be required to maintain any hedging position until exercise or expiration, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

In addition, some portion of our hedges are cleared through a central counterparty clearinghouse, or "CCP," which we access through a futures commission merchant, or "FCM." If an FCM that holds our cleared derivatives account were to become insolvent, the CCP will make an effort to move our futures positions to an alternate FCM, though it is possible that such transfer would fail, which would result in a total cancellation of our positions in the account; in such a case, if we wished to reinstate such hedging positions, we would have to re-initiate such positions with an alternate FCM. In the event of the insolvency of an FCM that holds our cleared over-the-counter derivatives, the rules of the CCP require that its direct members submit bids to take over the portfolio of the FCM, and would further require the CCP to move our existing positions and related margin to an alternate FCM. If this were to occur, we believe that our risk of loss would be limited to the excess equity in the account at the insolvent FCM due to the "legally segregated, operationally commingled" treatment of client assets under the rules governing FCMs in respect of cleared over-the-counter derivatives. In addition, in the case of both futures and cleared over-the-counter derivatives, there could be knock-on effects of our FCM's insolvency, such as the failure of co-customers of the FCM or other FCMs of the same CCP. In such cases, there could be a shortfall in the funds available to the CCP due to such additional insolvencies and/or exhaustion of the CCP's guaranty fund that could lead to total loss of our positions in the FCM account. Finally, we face a risk of loss (including total cancellation) of positions in the account in the event of fraud by our FCM or other FCMs of the CCP, where ordinary course remedies would not apply.

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

Certain of our hedging instruments are regulated by the CFTC and such regulations may adversely impact our ability to enter into such hedging instruments and cause us to incur increased costs.

We enter into interest rate swaps and credit default swaps, or "CDS," on corporations or on corporate indices, or "CDX," to hedge risks associated with our portfolio. Entities entering into such swaps are exposed to credit losses in the event of non-performance by counterparties to these transactions. Effective October 12, 2012, the CFTC issued rules regarding such swaps under the authority granted to it pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the "Dodd-Frank Act."

The rules primarily impact our trading of these instruments in two ways. First, beginning on June 10, 2013, certain newly executed swaps, including many interest rate and credit default swaps, became subject to mandatory clearing through a CCP. It is the intent of the Dodd-Frank Act that, by mandating the clearing of swaps in this manner, swap counterparty risk would not become overly concentrated in any single entity, but rather would be spread and centralized among the CCP and its members. We are not a direct member of any CCP, so we must access the CCPs through a FCM, which acts as intermediary between us and the CCP with respect to all facets of the transaction, including the posting and receipt of required collateral. If we lost access to our FCMs or CCPs, we could potentially be unable to use interest rate swaps and credit default swaps to hedge our risks.

The second way that the rules impact our trading of these instruments is the Swap Execution Facility, or "SEF," mandate, which came into effect on October 2, 2013, and requires that we execute most interest rate swaps and CDX on an electronic platform, rather than over the phone or in some other manner. If we were to lose access to our selected SEFs or we were otherwise unable to communicate with them, this would prevent us from being able to trade these instruments. If we were unable to execute our hedging trades in a timely manner, particularly in a volatile market environment, we may not be able to execute our strategies in the most advantageous manner.

In addition to subjecting our swap transactions to greater initial margin requirements and additional transaction fees charged by CCPs, FCMs, and SEFs, our swap transactions are now subjected to greater regulation by both the CFTC and the SEC. These additional fees, costs, margin requirements, documentation, and regulation could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Table of Contents

Our use of derivatives may expose us to counterparty risk.

We enter into interest rate swaps and other derivatives that have not been cleared by a CCP. If a derivative counterparty cannot perform under the terms of the derivative contract, we would not receive payments due under that agreement, we may lose any unrealized gain associated with the derivative, and the hedged liability would cease to be hedged by such instrument. If a derivative counterparty becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy, we may also be at risk for any collateral we have pledged to such counterparty to secure our obligations under derivative contracts, and we may incur significant costs in attempting to recover such collateral.

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

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

Certain actions by the Federal Reserve could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

In response to the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 and again in response to the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Federal Reserve announced and completed several rounds of quantitative easing, which are programs designed to expand the Federal Reserve's holdings of long-term securities by purchasing U.S. Treasury securities and/or Agency RMBS, in order to provide stability to the market. During 2020, among other actions, the Federal Reserve: (i) reduced the target range for the federal funds rate to 0.00%–0.25%; (ii) committed to purchase U.S. Treasury securities and Agency MBS without explicit limits on the amounts purchased; (iii) reduced the discount rate at its discount window; (iv) reduced the reserve requirement ratios for depository institutions to 0.00%; (v) announced its intention to continue conducting term and overnight repo operations; (vi) encouraged banks to use their capital and liquidity buffers to lend; and (vii) in coordination with other central banks, expanded U.S. dollar liquidity swap lines with foreign banks. The Federal Reserve also announced several funding and liquidity programs, including providing up to $2.3 trillion in additional loans to the market. These actions put downward pressure on interest rates and stabilized repo rates, but they could be changed and/or discontinued at any time. Long-term interest rates, including mortgage rates, also declined, which led to an increase in prepayment rates and negatively impacted the market value of many of our investments.

Among other effects, these interest rate reductions by the Federal Reserve could continue to increase prepayment rates (resulting from lower long-term interest rates, including mortgage rates), continue to impact the shape of the yield curve, and cause a narrowing of our net interest margin. If the Federal Reserve were to discontinue, modify or reverse some or all of the programs and actions it implemented in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, such actions could have a material adverse effect on our investment portfolio and on the economy as a whole, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Conversely, if the negative economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue, the Federal Reserve could implement additional quantitative easing or other similar programs designed to maintain interest rates or reduce them further, which could adversely impact our business, including lowering the yields that we are able to generate on our investments.

From December 2015 through December 2018, the Federal Reserve had been increasing the target range for the federal funds rate, and interest rate increases could occur again in the near future. See "—Increases in interest rates could negatively affect the value of our assets and increase the risk of default on our assets" above. These and other actions by the Federal Reserve could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

We may change our investment strategy, investment guidelines, hedging strategy, and asset allocation, operational, and management policies without notice or stockholder consent, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. In addition, our Board of Directors may authorize us to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election without the approval of our stockholders.

We may change our investment strategy, investment guidelines, hedging strategy, and asset allocation, operational, and

Table of Contents

management policies at any time without notice to or consent from our stockholders. As a result, the types or mix of assets, liabilities, or hedging transactions in our portfolio may be different from, and possibly riskier than, the types or mix of assets, liabilities, and hedging transactions that we have historically held, or that are otherwise described in this report. A change in our strategy may increase our exposure to real estate values, interest rates, and other factors. Our Board of Directors determines our investment guidelines and our operational policies, and may amend or revise our policies, including those with respect to our acquisitions, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization, and dividends or approve transactions that deviate from these policies without a vote of, or notice to, our stockholders. Policy or strategy changes could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Although we elected to be treated as a REIT, our Board of Directors may authorize us to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, at any time. These changes could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

We operate in a highly competitive market.

Our profitability depends, in large part, on our ability to acquire targeted assets at favorable prices. We compete with a number of entities when acquiring our targeted assets, including other mortgage REITs, financial companies, public and private funds, commercial and investment banks, and residential and commercial finance companies. We may also compete with (i) the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury to the extent they purchase assets in our targeted asset classes and (ii) companies that partner with and/or receive financing from the U.S. Government or consumer bank deposits. Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably more favorable access to capital and other resources than we do. We acquire a significant amount of our loan assets pursuant to flow agreements with various loan originators. If such originators are unable or unwilling to continue to sell loan assets to us, we may be forced to acquire such loan assets at prices that are less attractive, or acquire different assets, which could adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. Furthermore, new companies with significant amounts of capital have been formed or have raised additional capital, and may continue to be formed and raise additional capital in the future, and these companies may have objectives that overlap with ours, which may create competition for assets we wish to acquire. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that are not available to us, such as funding from the U.S. Government. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of assets to acquire, or pay higher prices than we can. We also may have different operating constraints from those of our competitors including, among others, (i) tax-driven constraints such as those arising from our qualification as a REIT and in some cases to avoid adverse tax consequences to our stockholders, (ii) restraints imposed on us by our attempt to comply with certain exclusions from the definition of an "investment company" or other exemptions under the Investment Company Act and (iii) restraints and additional costs arising from our status as a public company. Furthermore, competition for assets in our targeted asset classes may lead to the price of such assets increasing, which may further limit our ability to generate desired returns. We cannot assure you that the competitive pressures we face will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

We are highly dependent on Ellington's information systems and those of third-party service providers and system failures could significantly disrupt our business, which may, in turn, materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Our business is highly dependent on Ellington's communications and information systems and those of third-party service providers. Any failure or interruption of Ellington's or certain third-party service providers' systems or cyber-attacks or security breaches of their networks or systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities, could allow unauthorized access for purposes of misappropriating assets, stealing proprietary and confidential information, corrupting data or causing operational disruption, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Computer malware, ransomware, viruses, and computer hacking and phishing attacks have become more prevalent in the financial services industry and may occur on Ellington's or certain third party service providers' systems in the future. We rely heavily on Ellington's financial, accounting and other data processing systems. Although Ellington has not detected a breach to date, financial services institutions have reported breaches of their systems, some of which have been significant. Even with all reasonable security efforts, not every breach can be prevented or even detected. It is possible that Ellington or certain third-party service providers have experienced an undetected breach, and it is likely that other financial institutions have experienced more breaches than have been detected and reported. There is no assurance that we, Ellington, or certain of the third parties that facilitate our and Ellington's business activities, have not or will not experience a breach. It is difficult to determine what, if any, negative impact may directly result from any specific interruption or cyber-attacks or security breaches of Ellington's networks or systems (or the networks or systems of certain third parties that facilitate our and Ellington's business activities) or

Table of Contents

any failure to maintain performance, reliability and security of Ellington's or certain third-party service providers' technical infrastructure, but such computer malware, ransomware, viruses, and computer hacking and phishing attacks may negatively affect our operations.

Because we are highly dependent on information systems when sharing information with third party service providers, systems failures, breaches or cyber-attacks could significantly disrupt our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows.

When we acquire certain investments, including residential mortgage loans and consumer loans, we may come into possession of non-public personal information that an identity thief could utilize in engaging in fraudulent activity or theft. We may share this information with third party service providers, including those interested in acquiring such loans from us or financing such loans, or with other third parties, as required or permitted by law. We may be liable for losses suffered by individuals whose personal information is stolen as a result of a breach of the security of the systems on which Ellington, or third-party service providers of ours store this information, or as a result of other mismanagement of such information, and any such liability could be material. Even if we are not liable for such losses, any breach of these systems could expose us to material costs in notifying affected individuals or other parties and providing credit monitoring services, as well as to regulatory fines or penalties. In addition, any breach of these systems could disrupt our normal business operations and expose us to reputational damage and lost business, revenues, and profits.

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

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

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

The lack of liquidity in our assets may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

We acquire assets and other instruments that are not publicly traded, including privately placed RMBS, residential and commercial mortgage loans, CLOs, consumer loans, ABS backed by consumer and commercial assets, distressed corporate debt and equity, and other private investments. As such, these assets may be subject to legal and other restrictions on resale, transfer, pledge or other disposition, or will otherwise be less liquid than publicly traded securities. Other assets that we acquire, while publicly traded, have limited liquidity on account of their complexity, turbulent market conditions, or other factors. In addition, mortgage-related assets from time to time have experienced extended periods of illiquidity, including during times of financial stress (such as during the COVID-19 pandemic), which is often the time that liquidity is most needed. Illiquid assets typically experience greater price volatility, because a ready market does not exist, and they can be more difficult to value or sell if the need arises. In addition, if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we have previously recorded our assets. We may also face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate any assets for which we or our Manager has or could be attributed with material non-public information. Furthermore, assets that are illiquid are more difficult to finance, and to the extent that we finance assets that are or become illiquid, we may lose that financing or have it reduced. If we are unable to sell our assets at favorable prices or at all, it could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

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

Loan originators and servicers are required to comply with various federal, state and local laws and regulations, including anti-predatory lending laws and laws and regulations imposing certain restrictions on requirements on high cost loans. Failure of loan originators or servicers to comply with these laws, to the extent any of their loans become part of our assets, could subject us, as an assignee or purchaser of the related loans, to monetary penalties and could result in the borrowers rescinding

Table of Contents

the affected 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 assignees or purchasers of certain types of loans we invest in. If the loans are found to have been originated in violation of predatory or abusive lending laws, we could incur losses, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

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

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

Consumer loans are subject to delinquency and loss, which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

We are exposed to the performance of consumer loans both through the consumer loans that we own directly, and through those consumer loans to which we are exposed indirectly through our ownership of consumer-loan-backed ABS. The ability of borrowers to repay consumer loans may be adversely affected by numerous borrower-specific factors, including unemployment, divorce, major medical expenses or personal bankruptcy. General factors, including an economic downturn, high energy costs or acts of God, pandemics such as the COVID-19 pandemic, or terrorism, may also affect the financial stability of borrowers and impair their ability or willingness to repay their loans. Whenever any of our consumer loans defaults, we are at risk of loss to the extent of any deficiency between the liquidation value of the collateral, if any, securing the loan, and the principal and accrued interest of the loan. Many of our consumer loans are unsecured, or are secured by collateral (such as an automobile) that depreciates rapidly; as a result, these loans may be at greater risk of loss than residential real estate loans. Pursuing any remaining deficiency following a default is often difficult or impractical, especially when the borrower has a low credit score, making further substantial collection efforts unwarranted. In addition, repossessing personal property securing a consumer loan can present additional challenges, including locating and taking physical possession of the collateral. We rely on servicers who service these consumer loans, to, among other things, collect principal and interest payments on the loans and perform loss mitigation services, and these servicers may not perform in a manner that promotes our interests. Since we purchase some of our consumer loans and our consumer-loan-backed ABS at a premium to the remaining unpaid principal balance, we may incur a loss when such loans are voluntarily prepaid. There can be no guarantee that we will not suffer unexpected losses on our investments as a result of the factors set out above, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Increased regulatory attention and potential regulatory action on certain areas within the consumer credit or reverse mortgage businesses could have a negative impact on our reputation, or cause losses on our investments in consumer loans or our equity investment in loan originators.

Certain consumer advocacy groups, media reports, and federal and state legislators have asserted that laws and regulations should be tightened to severely limit, if not eliminate, the availability of certain loan products. The consumer advocacy groups and media reports generally focus on higher cost consumer loans, which are typically made to less creditworthy borrowers, and which bear interest rates that are higher than the interest rates typically charged by lending institutions to more creditworthy consumers. These consumer advocacy groups and media reports have characterized these consumer loans as predatory or abusive. In addition, reverse mortgage loans have faced similar issues in terms of media reports and potential legislative hurdles. If the negative characterization of these types of loans becomes increasingly accepted by consumers, legislators or regulators, our reputation, as a purchaser of such loans and as an equity investor in a both a consumer loan originator and a reverse mortgage originator, could be negatively impacted. Furthermore, if legislators or regulators take action against originators of consumer loans or reverse mortgages or provide for payment relief for borrowers (which could happen, for example, because of the new presidential administration), we could incur additional losses on the consumer loans that we have purchased and/or with respect to the equity investments that we have made in a consumer loan originator and a reverse mortgage originator.

Table of Contents

Our investments in distressed debt and equity have significant risk of loss, and our efforts to protect these investments may involve large costs and may not be successful.

Our investments in distressed debt and equity have a significant risk of loss, and our efforts to protect these investments may involve large costs and may not be successful. We also will be subject to significant uncertainty as to when and in what manner and for what value the distressed debt or equity in which we invest will eventually be satisfied (e.g., in the case of distressed debt, through liquidation of the obligor's assets, an exchange offer or plan of reorganization involving the distressed debt securities or a payment of some amount in satisfaction of the obligation). In addition, even if an exchange offer is made or plan of reorganization is adopted with respect to distressed debt we hold, there can be no assurance that the securities or other assets received by us in connection with such exchange offer or plan of reorganization will not have a lower value or income potential than may have been anticipated when the investment was made. Moreover, any securities received by us upon completion of an exchange offer or plan of reorganization may be restricted as to resale. If we participate in negotiations with respect to any exchange offer or plan of reorganization with respect to an issuer of distressed debt, we may be restricted from disposing of such securities.

The pools of loans underlying Ellington-sponsored CLO securitizations ("Ellington-Sponsored CLOs") have historically had lower credit ratings than the loan portfolios in typical CLOs, as they allow for a higher percentage of below investment grade loans. Ellington-Sponsored CLOs have at times also experienced negative credit events in their constituent loans, credit rating downgrades of constituent loans and issued debt tranches, and failures of certain deal metrics. As a result, the risks associated with our investments in Ellington-Sponsored CLOs may be greater than those associated with our investments in other CLOs. In addition, we have in the past, and we may in the future, make equity investments in proposed Ellington-Sponsored CLO issuing entities, and we also may make loans to such entities in which we have an equity investment, to enable these entities to establish warehouse facilities for the purpose of acquiring the assets to be securitized. If the assets accumulated prior to the completion of a proposed CLO securitization experience negative credit events, decrease in value, are sold at a loss, or the proposed securitization does not occur, our equity and loan investments in such entity may experience a partial or complete loss.

We have held and may continue to hold the debt securities, loans or equity of companies that are more likely to enter into bankruptcy proceedings or have other risks.

We have held and may continue to hold the debt securities, loans or equity of companies that are more likely to experience bankruptcy or similar financial distress, such as companies that are thinly capitalized, employ a high degree of financial leverage, are in highly competitive or risky businesses, are in a start-up phase, or are experiencing losses. The bankruptcy process has a number of significant inherent risks. Many events in a bankruptcy proceeding are the product of contested matters and adversarial proceedings and are beyond the control of the creditors. A bankruptcy filing by a company whose debt or equity we have purchased may adversely and permanently affect such company. If the proceeding results in liquidation, the liquidation value of the company may have deteriorated significantly from what we believed to be the case at the time of our initial investment. The duration of a bankruptcy proceeding is also difficult to predict, and a return on investment to a creditor or equity investor can be adversely affected by delays until a plan of reorganization or liquidation ultimately becomes effective. The administrative costs in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding are frequently high and would be paid out of the debtor's estate prior to any return to creditors. Because the standards for classification of claims under bankruptcy law are vague, our influence with respect to the class of securities or other obligations we own may be lost by increases in the number and amount of claims in the same class or by different classification and treatment. In the early stages of the bankruptcy process, it is often difficult to estimate the extent of, or even to identify, any contingent claims that might be made. In addition, certain claims that have priority by law (for example, claims for taxes) may be substantial, eroding the value of any recovery by holders of other securities of the bankrupt entity.

A bankruptcy court may also re-characterize our debt investment as equity, and subordinate all or a portion of our claim to that of other creditors. This could occur even if our investment had initially been structured as senior debt, and we could lose all or a significant part of our investment.

We have made and may in the future make loans secured by, or invest in structures tied to, individual, or portfolios of, legal claims, or "litigation finance loans." There is no assurance our Manager will be able to predict several aspects of the cases underlying our investments, including to which courts and judges the cases are assigned, the development of evidence during discovery and its presentation at trial, the composition and decisions of juries, timing of the judicial process, likelihood of settlements and collectability of judgments.

In addition, we will not have the ability to control decisions made by the claimholder, defendant, or the law firm, nor can we share details of the underlying cases with our stockholders. We rely on, among other things, the advice and opinion of outside counsel and other experts in assessing potential claims and on the skills and efforts of independent law firms to litigate

Table of Contents

cases. There is no guarantee that the ultimate outcome of any case will be in line with a law firm's or expert's initial assessment of the validity and merit of a legal claim.

Various laws restrict the ability to assign certain legal claims or to participate in a lawyer's contingent fee interest in a claim. While we intend to analyze all relevant restrictions prior to investment, there is a risk that failure to comply with a federal, state or local law, rule or regulation could subject us to liability and jeopardize the enforceability of our investment.

We may be subject to risks associated with syndicated loans.

Under the documentation for syndicated loans, a financial institution or other entity typically is designated as the administrative agent and/or collateral agent. This agent is granted a lien on any collateral on behalf of the other lenders and distributes payments on the indebtedness as they are received. The agent is the party responsible for administering and enforcing the loan and generally may take actions only in accordance with the instructions of a majority or two-thirds in commitments and/or principal amount of the associated indebtedness. In most cases for our syndicated loan investments, we do not expect to hold a sufficient amount of the indebtedness to be able to compel any actions by the agent. Consequently, we would only be able to direct such actions if instructions from us were made in conjunction with other holders of associated indebtedness that together with us compose the requisite percentage of the related indebtedness then entitled to take action. Conversely, if holders of the required amount of the associated indebtedness other than us desire to take certain actions, such actions may be taken even if we did not support such actions. Furthermore, if a syndicated loan is subordinated to one or more senior loans made to the applicable obligor, the ability of us to exercise such rights may be subordinated to the exercise of such rights by the senior lenders. Whenever we are unable to direct such actions, the parties taking such actions may not have interests that are aligned with us, and the actions taken may not be in our best interests.

If an investment is a syndicated revolving loan or delayed drawdown loan, other lenders may fail to satisfy their full contractual funding commitments for such loan, which could create a breach of contract, result in a lawsuit by the obligor against the lenders and adversely affect the fair market value of our investment.

There is a risk that a loan agent may become bankrupt or insolvent. Such an event would delay, and possibly impair, any enforcement actions undertaken by holders of the associated indebtedness, including attempts to realize upon the collateral securing the associated indebtedness and/or direct the agent to take actions against the related obligor or the collateral securing the associated indebtedness and actions to realize on proceeds of payments made by obligors that are in the possession or control of any other financial institution. In addition, we may be unable to remove the agent in circumstances in which removal would be in our best interests. Moreover, agented loans typically allow for the agent to resign with certain advance notice, and we may not find a replacement agent on a timely basis, or at all, in order to protect our investment.

We have made and may in the future make investments in companies that we do not control.

Some of our investments in loan originators and other operating entities include, or may include, debt instruments and/or equity securities of companies that we do not control. Those investments will be subject to the risk that the company in which the investment is made may make business, financial or management decisions with which we do not agree or that the majority stakeholders or the management of such company may take risks or otherwise act in a manner that does not serve our interests. The entities in which we invest could be thinly capitalized, highly leveraged, dependent on a small number of key individuals, subject to regulatory concerns, or face other obstacles that could adversely affect the business and results of operations of any such entity. If any of the foregoing were to occur, our investments in these operating entities could be lost in their entirety, and our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow could suffer as a result.

We have invested and may in the future invest in securities in the developing CRT sector that are subject to mortgage credit risk.

We have invested and may in the future invest in credit risk transfer securities, or "CRTs." CRTs are designed to transfer a portion of the mortgage credit risk of a pool of insured or guaranteed mortgage loans from the insurer or guarantor of such loans to CRT investors. In a CRT transaction, interest and/or principal of the CRT is written off following certain credit events, such as delinquencies, defaults, and/or realized losses, on the underlying mortgage pool. To date, the vast majority of CRTs consist of risk sharing transactions issued by the GSEs, namely Fannie Mae's Connecticut Avenue Securities program, or "CAS," and Freddie Mac's Structured Agency Credit Risk program, or "STACR." These securities have historically been unsecured and subject to the credit risk of the underlying mortgage pool. In the future, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may issue CRTs with a variety of other structures.

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The recent global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected, and could continue to adversely affect, our business, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations.

EFC US Equity

EFC · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors

EFC US Equity☆

EFC · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors

EFC US Equity