BMNM Bimini Capital Management Inc (QB)

ITEM 1A.  RISK FACTORS.

Summary of Risk Factors

 Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below under the heading “Risk Factors” and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other filings with the SEC, before making an investment decision regarding our common stock.

•	Increases in interest rates may negatively affect the value of our investments and increase the cost of our borrowings, which could result in reduced earnings or losses.

•	An increase in interest rates may also cause a decrease in the volume of newly issued, or investor demand for, Agency MBS, which could materially adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives and our business, financial condition and results of operations.

•	Interest rate mismatches between our Agency MBS and our borrowings may reduce our net interest margin during periods of changing interest rates, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

•	Although structured Agency MBS are generally subject to the same risks as our pass-through Agency MBS, certain types of risks may be enhanced depending on the type of structured Agency MBS in which we invest.

•	Differences in the stated maturity of our fixed rate assets, or in the timing of interest rate adjustments on our adjustable-rate assets, and our borrowings may adversely affect our profitability.

•	New laws may be passed affecting the relationship between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, on the one hand, and the federal government, on the other, which could adversely affect the price of, or our ability to invest in and finance Agency MBS.

•	Purchases and sales of Agency MBS by the Fed may adversely affect the prince and return associated with Agency MBS

•	Changes in the levels of prepayments on the mortgages underlying our Agency MBS might decrease net interest income or result in a net loss, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

•	Interest rate caps on the ARMs and hybrid ARMs backing our Agency MBS may reduce our net interest margin during periods of rising interest rates, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

•	Failure to procure adequate repurchase agreement financing, or to renew or replace existing repurchase agreement financing as it matures, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

•

Adverse market developments could cause our lenders to require us to pledge additional assets as collateral. If our assets were insufficient to meet these collateral requirements, we might be compelled to liquidate particular assets at inopportune times and at unfavorable prices, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

•	Hedging against interest rate exposure may not completely insulate us from interest rate risk and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

•	Our use of leverage could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

•

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. As a result, the values of some of our assets are uncertain.

•

If our lenders default on their obligations to resell the Agency MBS back to us at the end of the repurchase transaction term, or if the value of the Agency MBS has declined by the end of the repurchase transaction term or if we default on our obligations under the repurchase transaction, we will lose money on these transactions, which, in turn, may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

•	We have issued long-term debt to fund our operations which can increase the volatility of our earnings and stockholders’ equity.

•	Clearing facilities or exchanges upon which some of our hedging instruments are traded may increase margin requirements on our hedging instruments in the event of adverse economic developments.

•	We depend primarily on two individuals to operate our business, and the loss of one or both of such persons could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

•	We may change our investment strategy, investment guidelines and asset allocation without notice or stockholder consent, which may result in riskier investments.

•	Loss of our exemption from regulation under the Investment Company Act would negatively affect the value of shares of our common stock.

•	Failure to obtain and maintain an exemption from being regulated as a commodity pool operator could subject us to additional regulation and compliance requirements and may result in fines and other penalties which could materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

•	Our ownership limitations and certain other provisions of applicable law and our charter and bylaws may restrict business combination opportunities that would otherwise be favorable to our stockholders.

•	The termination of our management agreement with Orchid could significantly reduce our revenues.

•	We cannot predict the effect that government policies, laws and plans adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the global recessionary economic conditions will have on us.

Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the risks described below and all other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our annual consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto, before making an investment decision regarding our common stock. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be harmed by any of these risks. Similarly, these risks could cause the market price of our common stock to decline and you might lose all or part of your investment. Our forward-looking statements in this annual report are subject to the following risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated by our forward-looking statements as a result of the risk factors below.

Risks Related to Our Business

Increases in interest rates may negatively affect the value of our investments and increase the cost of our borrowings, which could result in reduced earnings or losses.

Under normal market conditions, an investment in Agency MBS will decline in value if interest rates increase. In addition, net interest income could decrease if the yield curve becomes inverted or flat. While Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae guarantee the principal and interest payments related to the Agency MBS we own, this guarantee does not protect us from declines in market value caused by changes in interest rates. Declines in the market value of our investments may ultimately result in losses to us, which may reduce earnings and cash available to fund our operations.

Significant increases in both long-term and short-term interest rates pose a substantial risk associated with our investment in Agency MBS. If long-term rates were to increase significantly, the market value of our Agency MBS would decline, and the duration and weighted average life of the investments would increase. We could realize a loss if the securities were sold. At the same time, an increase in short-term interest rates would increase the amount of interest owed on our repurchase agreements used to finance the purchase of Agency MBS, which would decrease cash. Using this business model, we are particularly susceptible to the effects of an inverted yield curve, where short-term rates are higher than long-term rates. Although rare in a historical context, the U.S. and many countries in Europe have experienced inverted yield curves. Given the volatile nature of the U.S. economy and potential future increases in short-term interest rates, there can be no guarantee that the yield curve will not become and/or remain inverted. If this occurs, it could result in a decline in the value of our Agency MBS, our business, financial position and results of operations.

An increase in interest rates may also cause a decrease in the volume of newly issued, or investor demand for, Agency MBS, which could materially adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives and our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Rising interest rates generally reduce the demand for consumer credit, including mortgage loans, due to the higher cost of borrowing. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans may affect the volume of Agency MBS available to us, which could affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives. Rising interest rates may also cause Agency MBS that were issued prior to an interest rate increase to provide yields that exceed prevailing market interest rates. If rising interest rates cause us to be unable to acquire a sufficient volume of Agency MBS or Agency MBS with a yield that exceeds our borrowing costs, our ability to satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income, our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Interest rate mismatches between our Agency MBS and our borrowings may reduce our net interest margin during periods of changing interest rates, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our portfolio includes Agency MBS backed by ARMs, hybrid Arms and fixed-rate mortgages, and the mix of these securities in the portfolio may be increased or decreased over time. Additionally, the interest rates on ARMs and hybrid ARMs may vary over time based on changes in a short-term interest rate index, of which there are many.

We finance our acquisitions of pass-through Agency MBS with short-term financing. During periods of rising short-term interest rates, the income we earn on these securities will not change (with respect to Agency MBS backed by fixed-rate mortgage loans) or will not increase at the same rate (with respect to Agency MBS backed by ARMs and hybrid ARMs) as our related financing costs, which may reduce our net interest margin or result in losses.

We invest in structured Agency MBS, including IOs, IIOs and POs. Although structured Agency MBS are generally subject to the same risks as our pass-through Agency MBS, certain types of risks may be enhanced depending on the type of structured Agency MBS in which we invest.

The structured Agency MBS in which we invest are securitizations (i) issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae, (ii) collateralized by Agency MBS and (iii) divided into various tranches that have different characteristics (such as different maturities or different coupon payments). These securities may carry greater risk than an investment in pass-through Agency MBS. For example, certain types of structured Agency MBS, such as IOs, IIOs and POs, are more sensitive to prepayment risks than pass-through Agency MBS. If we were to invest in structured Agency MBS that were more sensitive to prepayment risks relative to other types of structured Agency MBS or pass-through Agency MBS, we may increase our portfolio-wide prepayment risk.

Differences in the stated maturity of our fixed rate assets, or in the timing of interest rate adjustments on our adjustable-rate assets, and our borrowings may adversely affect our profitability.

We rely primarily on short-term and/or variable rate borrowings to acquire fixed-rate securities with long-term maturities. In addition, we may have adjustable rate assets with interest rates that vary over time based upon changes in an objective index, such as LIBOR, the U.S. Treasury rate or the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”). These indices generally reflect short-term interest rates but these assets may not reset in a manner that matches our borrowings.

The relationship between short-term and longer-term interest rates is often referred to as the "yield curve." Ordinarily, short-term interest rates are lower than longer-term interest rates. If short-term interest rates rise disproportionately relative to longer-term interest rates (a "flattening" of the yield curve), our borrowing costs may increase more rapidly than the interest income earned on our assets. Because our investments generally bear interest at longer-term rates than we pay on our borrowings, a flattening of the yield curve would tend to decrease our net interest income and the market value of our investment portfolio. Additionally, to the extent cash flows from investments that return scheduled and unscheduled principal are reinvested, the spread between the yields on the new investments and available borrowing rates may decline, which would likely decrease our net income. It is also possible that short-term interest rates may exceed longer-term interest rates (a yield curve "inversion"), in which event, our borrowing costs may exceed our interest income and result in operating losses.

New laws may be passed affecting the relationship between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, on the one hand, and the federal government, on the other, which could adversely affect the price of, or our ability to invest in and finance Agency MBS.

The interest and principal payments we expect to receive on the Agency MBS in which we invest are guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. Principal and interest payments on Ginnie Mae certificates are directly guaranteed by the U.S. government. Principal and interest payments relating to the securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are only guaranteed by each respective GSE.

In September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into the conservatorship of the 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. In addition to FHFA becoming the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “U.S. Treasury”) entered into Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (“PSPAs”) with the FHFA and have taken various actions intended to provide Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with additional liquidity in an effort to ensure their financial stability. In September 2019, the FHFA and the U.S. Treasury agreed to modifications to the PSPAs that will permit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to maintain capital reserves of $25 billion and $20 billion, respectively. As of September 30, 2020, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had retained equity capital of approximately $21 billion and $14 billion, respectively.  In December 2020, a final rule was published in the federal register regarding GSE capital framework (the “December rule”), which requires Tier 1 capital in excess of 4% (approximately $265 billion) and a risk-weight floor of 20% for residential mortgages.  On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Treasury and the FHFA executed letter agreements allowing the GSEs to continue to retain capital up to their regulatory minimums, including buffers, as prescribed in the December rule.  These letter agreements provide, in part, (i) there will be no exit from conservatorship until all material litigation is settled and the GSE has common equity Tier 1 capital of at least 3% of its assets, (ii) the GSEs will comply with the FHFA’s regulatory capital framework, (iii) higher-risk single-family mortgage acquisitions will be restricted to current levels, and (iv) the U.S. Treasury and the FHFA will establish a timeline and process for future GSE reform.

Shortly after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed in federal conservatorship, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury suggested that the guarantee payment structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the U.S. housing finance market should be re-examined. The future roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be significantly reduced and the nature of their guarantees could be eliminated or considerably limited relative to historical measurements. The U.S. Treasury could also stop providing credit support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the future. Any changes to the nature of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could redefine what constitutes an Agency MBS and could have broad adverse market implications. If Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac was eliminated, or their structures were to change in a material manner that is not compatible with our business model, we would not be able to acquire Agency MBS from these entities, which could adversely affect our business operations.

On December 9, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Collins v. Mnuchin, a case which has potentially significant implications for the structure and existence of the FHFA.  At issue is the constitutionality of the FHFA and its director’s protection from being replaced at will by the President.  A ruling in favor of the plaintiff could have broad policy and market implications by allowing the Biden administration to immediately replace the FHFA director, or invalidating actions taken by the FHFA.

The implementation of the Single Security Initiative may adversely affect our results and financial condition.

The Single Security Initiative is a joint initiative of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “Enterprises”), under the direction of the FHFA, the Enterprises’ regulator and conservator, to develop a common, single mortgage-backed security issued by the Enterprises.

On June 3, 2019, with the implementation of Release 2 of the common securitization platform, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae commenced use of a common, single mortgage-backed security, known as the Uniform Mortgage-Backed Security (“UMBS”).  Fannie Mae pools are now eligible for conversion into UMBS pools and Freddie Mac pools can be exchanged for UMBS pools. The conversion is not mandatory. UMBS is intended to enhance liquidity in the TBA market as the two GSEs’ floats are combined, eliminating or reducing the market pricing subsidy that Freddie Mac currently provides to lenders to pool their loans with Freddie Mac instead of Fannie Mae, and pave the way for future GSE reform by allowing new entrants to enter the MBS guarantee market.

The current float of Gold Participation Certificates (“Gold PCs”) issued by Freddie Mac is materially smaller than the float of Fannie Mae securities.  To the extent Gold PCs are converted into UMBS, the float will contract further. A further decline could impact the liquidity of Gold PCs not converted into UMBS.  Secondly, the TBA deliverable has appeared to deteriorate as the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pools with the worst prepayment characteristics are delivered into new TBA securities, concentrating the poorest pools into the TBA deliverable, which has negatively impacted their performance.  To the extent investors recognize the relative performance of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac pools over the other, they may stipulate that they only wish to be delivered TBA securities with pools from the better performing GSE.  By bifurcating the TBA deliverable, liquidity in the TBA market could be negatively impacted.

Our liquidity is typically reduced each month when we receive margin calls related to factor changes, and typically increased each month when we receive payment of principal and interest on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities. Legacy Freddie Mac securities pay principal and interest earlier in the month than Fannie Mae and UMBS, meaning that legacy Freddie Mac positions reduce the period of time between meeting factor-related margin calls and receiving principal and interest. The percentage of legacy Freddie Mac positions in the market and in our portfolio will likely decrease over time as those securities are converted to UMBS or paid off.

Purchases and sales of Agency MBS by the Fed may adversely affect the price and return associated with Agency MBS.

The Fed owned approximately $2.0 trillion of Agency MBS as of December 31, 2020. Starting in October 2017, the Fed began to phase out its policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of Agency MBS into new Agency MBS purchases, therefore causing a decline in Fed security holdings over time.  While it is very difficult to predict the impact of the Fed portfolio runoff on the prices and liquidity of Agency MBS, returns on Agency MBS may be adversely affected.

Increased levels of prepayments on the mortgages underlying our Agency MBS might decrease net interest income or result in a net loss, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the case of residential mortgages, there are seldom any restrictions on borrowers’ ability to prepay their loans.  Prepayment rates generally increase when interest rates fall and decrease when interest rates rise. Prepayment rates also may be affected by other factors, including, without limitation, conditions in the housing and financial markets, governmental action, general economic conditions and the relative interest rates on ARMs, hybrid ARMs and fixed-rate mortgage loans. With respect to pass-through Agency MBS, faster-than-expected prepayments could also materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations in various ways, including, if we are unable to quickly acquire new Agency MBS that generate comparable returns to replace the prepaid Agency MBS.

When we acquire structured Agency MBS, we anticipate that the underlying mortgages will prepay at a projected rate, generating an expected yield. When the prepayment rates on the mortgages underlying our structured Agency MBS are higher than expected, our returns on those securities may be materially adversely affected. For example, the value of our IOs and IIOs are extremely sensitive to prepayments because holders of these securities do not have the right to receive any principal payments on the underlying mortgages. Therefore, if the mortgage loans underlying our IOs and IIOs are prepaid, such securities would cease to have any value, which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

While we seek to minimize prepayment risk, we must balance prepayment risk against other risks and the potential returns of each investment. No strategy can completely insulate us from prepayment or other such risks.

A decrease in prepayment rates on the mortgages underlying our Agency MBS might decrease net interest income or result in a net loss, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Certain of our structured Agency MBS may be adversely affected by a decrease in prepayment rates. For example, because POs are similar to zero-coupon bonds, our expected returns on such securities will be contingent on our receiving the principal payments of the underlying mortgage loans at expected intervals that assume a certain prepayment rate. If prepayment rates are lower than expected, we will not receive principal payments as quickly as we anticipated and, therefore, our expected returns on these securities will be adversely affected, which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

While we seek to minimize prepayment risk, we must balance prepayment risk against other risks and the potential returns of each investment. No strategy can completely insulate us from prepayment or other such risks.

Interest rate caps on the ARMs and hybrid ARMs backing our Agency MBS may reduce our net interest margin during periods of rising interest rates, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

ARMs and hybrid ARMs 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 the ARMs and hybrid ARMs backing our Agency MBS. 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 Agency MBS backed by ARMs and hybrid ARMs than necessary to pay interest on our related borrowings. Interest rate caps on Agency MBS 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.

Failure to procure adequate repurchase agreement financing, or to renew or replace existing repurchase agreement financing as it matures, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We intend to maintain master repurchase agreements with several counterparties. We cannot assure you that any, or sufficient, repurchase agreement financing will be available to us in the future on terms that are acceptable to us. Any decline in the value of Agency MBS, or perceived market uncertainty about their value, would make it more difficult for us to obtain financing on favorable terms or at all, or maintain our compliance with the terms of any financing arrangements already in place. We may be unable to diversify the credit risk associated with our lenders. In the event that we cannot obtain sufficient funding on acceptable terms, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Furthermore, because we intend to rely primarily on short-term borrowings to fund our acquisition of Agency MBS, our ability to achieve our investment objectives will depend not only on our ability to borrow money in sufficient amounts and on favorable terms, but also on our ability to renew or replace on a continuous basis our maturing short-term borrowings. If we are not able to renew or replace maturing borrowings, we will have to sell some or all of our assets, possibly under adverse market conditions. In addition, if the regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders change, they may be required to significantly increase the cost of the financing that they provide to us. Our lenders also may revise their eligibility requirements for the types of assets they are willing to finance or the terms of such financings, based on, among other factors, the regulatory environment and their management of perceived risk.

Adverse market developments could cause our lenders to require us to pledge additional assets as collateral. If our assets were insufficient to meet these collateral requirements, we might be compelled to liquidate particular assets at inopportune times and at unfavorable prices, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Adverse market developments, including a sharp or prolonged rise in interest rates, a change in prepayment rates or increasing market concern about the value or liquidity of one or more types of Agency MBS, might reduce the market value of our portfolio, which might cause our lenders to initiate margin calls. A margin call means that the lender requires us to pledge additional collateral to re-establish the ratio of the value of the collateral to the amount of the borrowing. The specific collateral value to borrowing ratio that would trigger a margin call is not set in the master repurchase agreements and not determined until we engage in a repurchase transaction under these agreements. Our fixed-rate Agency MBS generally are more susceptible to margin calls as increases in interest rates tend to more negatively affect the market value of fixed-rate securities. If we are unable to satisfy margin calls, our lenders may foreclose on our collateral. The threat or occurrence of a margin call could force us to sell, either directly or through a foreclosure, our Agency MBS under adverse market conditions. Because of the significant leverage we expect to have, we may incur substantial losses upon the threat or occurrence of a margin call, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Hedging against interest rate exposure may not completely insulate us from interest rate risk and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may enter into interest rate cap or swap agreements or pursue other hedging strategies, including the purchase of puts, calls or other options and futures contracts in order to hedge the interest rate risk of our portfolio. In general, our hedging strategy depends on our view of our entire portfolio consisting of assets, liabilities and derivative instruments, in light of prevailing market conditions. We could misjudge the condition of our investment portfolio or the market. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates and principal prepayments, the type of Agency MBS we hold and other changing market conditions. Hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:

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

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

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

•	certain types of hedges may expose us to risk of loss beyond the fee paid to initiate the hedge;

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

•	the counterparty in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay.

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

Because of the foregoing risks, our hedging activity could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our use of certain hedging techniques may expose us to counterparty risks.

To the extent that our hedging instruments are not traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearinghouse, or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities, there may not be requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and positions. Furthermore, the enforceability of agreements underlying hedging transactions may depend on compliance with applicable statutory, exchange and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the domicile of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. Consequently, if any of these issues causes a counterparty to fail to perform under a derivative agreement we could incur a significant loss.

For example, if a swap exchange utilized in an interest rate swap agreement that we enter into as part of our hedging strategy cannot perform under the terms of the interest rate swap agreement, we may not receive payments due under that agreement, and, thus, we may lose any potential benefit associated with the interest rate swap. Additionally, we may also risk the loss of any collateral we have pledged to secure our obligations under these swap agreements if the exchange becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy. Similarly, if an interest rate swaption counterparty fails to perform under the terms of the interest rate swaption agreement, in addition to not being able to exercise or otherwise cash settle the agreement, we could also incur a loss for the premium paid for that swaption.

Our use of leverage could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We calculate our leverage ratio by dividing our total liabilities by total equity at the end of each period.  Under normal market conditions, we generally expect our leverage ratio to be less than 12 to 1, although at times our borrowings may be above or below this level. We incur this indebtedness by borrowing against a substantial portion of the market value of our pass-through Agency MBS and a portion of our structured Agency MBS. Our total indebtedness, however, is not expressly limited by our policies and will depend on our prospective lenders’ estimates of the stability of our portfolio’s cash flow. As a result, there is no limit on the amount of leverage that we may incur. We face the risk that we might not be able to meet our debt service obligations or a lender’s margin requirements from our income and, to the extent we cannot, we might be forced to liquidate some of our Agency MBS at unfavorable prices. Our use of leverage could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, our borrowings are secured by our pass-through Agency MBS and a portion of our structured Agency MBS under repurchase agreements. A decline in the market value of the pass-through Agency MBS or structured Agency MBS used to secure these debt obligations could limit our ability to borrow or result in lenders requiring us to pledge additional collateral to secure our borrowings. In that situation, we could be required to sell Agency MBS under adverse market conditions in order to obtain the additional collateral required by the lender. If these sales are made at prices lower than the carrying value of the Agency MBS, we would experience losses. If we experience losses as a result of our use of leverage, such losses could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

It may be uneconomical to "roll" our TBA dollar roll transactions or we may be unable to meet margin calls on our TBA contracts, which could negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We may utilize TBA dollar roll transactions as a means of investing in and financing Agency MBS securities. TBA contracts enable us to purchase or sell, for future delivery, Agency MBS with certain principal and interest terms and certain types of collateral, but the particular Agency MBS to be delivered are not identified until shortly before the TBA settlement date. Prior to settlement of the TBA contract we may choose to move the settlement of the securities out to a later date by entering into an offsetting position (referred to as a "pair off"), net settling the paired off positions for cash, and simultaneously purchasing a similar TBA contract for a later settlement date, collectively referred to as a "dollar roll." The Agency MBS purchased for a forward settlement date under the TBA contract are typically priced at a discount to Agency MBS for settlement in the current month. This difference (or discount) is referred to as the "price drop." The price drop is the economic equivalent of net interest income earned from carrying the underlying Agency MBS over the roll period (interest income less implied financing cost). Consequently, dollar roll transactions and such forward purchases of Agency MBS represent a form of off-balance sheet financing and increase our "at risk" leverage.

Under certain market conditions, TBA dollar roll transactions may result in negative carry income whereby the Agency MBS purchased for a forward settlement date under the TBA contract are priced at a premium to Agency MBS for settlement in the current month. Additionally, sales of some or all of the Fed's holdings of Agency MBS or declines in purchases of Agency MBS by the Fed could adversely impact the dollar roll market. Under such conditions, it may be uneconomical to roll our TBA positions prior to the settlement date and we could have to take physical delivery of the underlying securities and settle our obligations for cash. We may not have sufficient funds or alternative financing sources available to settle such obligations. In addition, pursuant to the margin provisions established by the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division ("MBSD") of the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, we are subject to margin calls on our TBA contracts. Further, our clearing and custody agreements may require us to post additional margin above the levels established by the MBSD. Negative carry income on TBA dollar roll transactions or failure to procure adequate financing to settle our obligations or meet margin calls under our TBA contracts could result in defaults or force us to sell assets under adverse market conditions and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our forward settling transactions, including TBA transactions, subject us to certain risks, including price risks and counterparty risks.

We purchase some of our Agency MBS through forward settling transactions, including TBAs. In a forward settling transaction, we enter into a forward purchase agreement with a counterparty to purchase either (i) an identified Agency MBS, or (ii) a TBA, or to-be-issued, Agency MBS with certain terms. As with any forward purchase contract, the value of the underlying Agency MBS may decrease between the trade date and the settlement date. Furthermore, a transaction counterparty may fail to deliver the underlying Agency MBS at the settlement date. If any of these risks were to occur, our financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

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

We rely on analytical models, and information and other data supplied by third parties. These models and data may be used to value assets or potential asset acquisitions and dispositions and in connection with our asset management activities. If our models and data prove to be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon could expose us to potential risks.

Our reliance on models and data may induce us 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 models, such as prepayment 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 us may differ substantially from those models used by other market participants, resulting in valuations based on these predictive models that 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, or deep economic recessions or depressions), such models must employ greater degrees of extrapolation and are therefore more speculative and less reliable.

All valuation models rely on correct market data input. If incorrect market data is entered into even a well-founded valuation model, the resulting valuations will be incorrect. However, even if market data is inputted correctly, “model prices” will often differ substantially from market prices, especially for securities with complex characteristics 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 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. As a result, the values of some of our assets are uncertain.

While in many cases our determination of the fair value of our assets is based on valuations provided by third-party dealers and pricing services, we can and do value assets based upon our 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 may claim to furnish valuations only as an accommodation and without special compensation, and so they may disclaim any and all liability for any direct, incidental or consequential damages arising out of any inaccuracy or incompleteness in valuations, including any act of negligence or breach of any warranty. Depending on the complexity and illiquidity of an asset, valuations of the same asset can vary substantially from one dealer or pricing service to another. The valuation process during times of market distress can be particularly difficult and unpredictable and during such time the disparity of valuations provided by third-party dealers can widen.

Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected if our fair value determinations of these assets were materially higher than the values that would exist if a ready market existed for these assets.

Because the assets that we acquire might experience periods of illiquidity, we might be prevented from selling our Agency MBS at favorable times and prices, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Agency MBS generally experience periods of illiquidity. Such conditions are more likely to occur for structured Agency MBS because such securities are generally traded in markets much less liquid than the pass-through Agency MBS market. As a result, we may be unable to dispose of our Agency MBS at advantageous times and prices or in a timely manner. The lack of liquidity might result from the absence of a willing buyer or an established market for these assets as well as legal or contractual restrictions on resale. The illiquidity of Agency MBS could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our use of repurchase agreements may give our lenders greater rights in the event that either we or any of our lenders file for bankruptcy, which may make it difficult for us to recover our collateral in the event of a bankruptcy filing.

Our borrowings under repurchase agreements may qualify for special treatment under the bankruptcy code, giving our lenders the ability to avoid the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code and to take possession of and liquidate our collateral under the repurchase agreements without delay if we file for bankruptcy. Furthermore, the special treatment of repurchase agreements under the bankruptcy code may make it difficult for us to recover our pledged assets in the event that any of our lenders files for bankruptcy. Thus, the use of repurchase agreements exposes our pledged assets to risk in the event of a bankruptcy filing by either our lenders or us. 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 investment under a repurchase agreement or to be compensated for any damages resulting from the lender’s insolvency may be further limited by those statutes.

If a repurchase agreement counterparty defaults on their obligations to resell the Agency MBS back to us at the end ot the repurchase term, or if the value of the Agency MBS has declined by the end of the repurchase transaction term or if we default on our obligations under the repurchase transaction, we will lose money on these transactions, which, in turn, may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

When we engage in a repurchase transaction, we initially sell securities to the financial institution under one of our master repurchase agreements in exchange for cash, and our counterparty is obligated to resell the securities to us at the end of the term of the transaction, which is typically from 24 to 90 days but may be up to 364 days or more. The cash we receive when we initially sell the securities is less than the value of those securities, which is referred to as the haircut. Many financial institutions from which we may obtain repurchase agreement financing have increased their haircuts in the past and may do so again in the future. If these haircuts are increased, we will be required to post additional cash or securities as collateral for our Agency MBS. If our counterparty defaults on its obligation to resell the securities to us, we would incur a loss on the transaction equal to the amount of the haircut (assuming there was no change in the value of the securities). We would also lose money on a repurchase transaction if the value of the underlying securities had declined as of the end of the transaction term, as we would have to repurchase the securities for their initial value but would receive securities worth less than that amount. Any losses we incur on our repurchase transactions could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we default on one of our obligations under a repurchase transaction, the counterparty can terminate the transaction and cease entering into any other repurchase transactions with us. In that case, we would likely need to establish a replacement repurchase facility with another financial institution in order to continue to leverage our portfolio and carry out our investment strategy. There is no assurance we would be able to establish a suitable replacement facility on acceptable terms or at all.

We have issued long-term debt to fund our operations which can increase the volatility of our earnings and stockholders’ equity.

In October 2005, Bimini Capital completed a private offering of trust preferred securities of Bimini Capital Trust II, of which $26.8 million are still outstanding.  The Company must pay interest on these junior subordinated notes on a quarterly basis at a rate equal to current three month LIBOR rate plus 3.5%.  To the extent the Company’s does not generate sufficient earnings to cover the interest payments on the debt, our earnings and stockholders’ equity may be negatively impacted.

The Company considers the junior subordinated notes as part of its long-term capital base.  Therefore, for purposes of all disclosure in this report concerning our capital or leverage, the Company considers both stockholders’ equity and the $26.8 million of junior subordinated notes to constitute capital.

The Company has also elected to account for its investments in MBS under the fair value option and, therefore, will report MBS on our consolidated financial statements at fair value with unrealized gains and losses included in earnings.  Changes in the value of the MBS do not impact the outstanding balance of the junior subordinated notes but rather our stockholders’ equity.  Therefore, changes in the value of our MBS will be absorbed solely by our stockholders’ equity.  Because our stockholders’ equity is small in relation to our total capital, such changes may result in significant changes in our stockholders’ equity.

Clearing facilities or exchanges upon which some of our hedging instruments are traded may increase margin requirements on our hedging instruments in the event of adverse economic developments.

In response to events having or expected to have adverse economic consequences or which create market uncertainty, clearing facilities or exchanges upon which some of our hedging instruments, such as T-Note, Fed Funds and Eurodollar futures contracts, are traded may require us to post additional collateral against our hedging instruments. In the event that future adverse economic developments or market uncertainty result in increased margin requirements for our hedging instruments, it could materially adversely affect our liquidity position, business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may change our investment strategy, investment guidelines and asset allocation without notice or stockholder consent, which may result in riskier investments.

Our Board of Directors has the authority to change our investment strategy or asset allocation at any time without notice to or consent from our stockholders. To the extent that our investment strategy changes in the future, we may make investments that are different from, and possibly riskier than, the investments described in this annual report. A change in our investment strategy may increase our exposure to interest rate and real estate market fluctuations. Furthermore, a change in our asset allocation could result in our allocating assets in a different manner than as described in this annual report.

Competition might prevent us from acquiring Agency MBS at favorable yields, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We operate in a highly competitive market for investment opportunities. Our net income largely depends on our ability to acquire Agency MBS at favorable spreads over our borrowing costs. In acquiring Agency MBS, we compete with a variety of institutional investors, including mortgage REITs, investment banking firms, savings and loan associations, banks, insurance companies, mutual funds, other lenders, other entities that purchase Agency MBS, the Federal Reserve, other governmental entities and government-sponsored entities, many of which have greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that may not be available to us, such as funding from the U.S. government. Additionally, many of our competitors are required to maintain an exemption from the Investment Company Act. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of investments. Furthermore, competition for investments in Agency MBS may lead the price of such investments to increase, which may further limit our ability to generate desired returns. As a result, we may not be able to acquire sufficient Agency MBS at favorable spreads over our borrowing costs, which would materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The occurrence of cyber-incidents, or a deficiency in our cybersecurity or in those of any of our third- party service providers could negatively impact our business by causing a disruption to our operations, a compromise or corruption of our confidential information or damage to our business relationships or reputation, all of which could negatively impact our business and results of operations.

A cyber-incident is considered to be any adverse event that threatens the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of our information resources or the information resources of our third-party service providers. More specifically, a cyber-incident is an intentional attack or an unintentional event that can include gaining unauthorized access to systems to disrupt operations, corrupt data, or steal confidential information. As our reliance on technology has increased, so have the risks posed to our systems, both internal and those we have outsourced. The primary risks that could directly result from the occurrence of a cyber-incident include operational interruption and private data exposure. We have implemented processes, procedures and controls to help mitigate these risks, but these measures, as well as our focus on mitigating the risk of a cyber-incident, do not guarantee that our business and results of operations will not be negatively impacted by such an incident.

We are highly dependent on communications and information systems operated by third parties, and systems failures could significantly disrupt our business, which may, in turn, adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business is highly dependent on communications and information systems that allow us to monitor, value, buy, sell, finance and hedge our investments. These systems are operated by third parties and, as a result, we have limited ability to ensure their continued operation. In the event of a systems failure or interruption, we will have limited ability to affect the timing and success of systems restoration. Any failure or interruption of our systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities, including Agency MBS trading activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We depend primarily on two individuals to operate our business, and the loss of one or both of such persons could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We depend substantially on two individuals, Robert E. Cauley, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and G. Hunter Haas, our President, Chief Investment Officer and Chief Financial Officer, to manage our business.  We depend on the diligence, experience and skill of Mr. Cauley and Mr. Haas in managing all aspects of our business, including the selection, acquisition, structuring and monitoring of securities portfolios and associated borrowings. Although we have entered into contracts and compensation arrangements with Mr. Cauley and Mr. Haas that encourage their continued employment, those contracts may not prevent either Mr. Cauley or Mr. Haas from leaving our company. The loss of either of them could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we issue debt securities, our operations may be restricted and we will be exposed to additional risk.

If we decide to issue debt securities in the future, it is likely that such securities will be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Additionally, any convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our Class A Common Stock. We, and indirectly our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities. Holders of debt securities may be granted specific rights, including but not limited to, the right to hold a perfected security interest in certain of our assets, the right to accelerate payments due under the indenture, rights to restrict dividend payments, and rights to approve the sale of assets. Such additional restrictive covenants and operating restrictions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Basel III standards and other supplementary regulatory standards may negatively impact our access to financing or affect the terms of our future financing arrangements.

In response to various financial crises and the volatility of financial markets, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, an international body comprised of senior representatives of bank supervisory authorities and central banks from 27 countries, including the United States, adopted the Basel III standards several years ago. U.S. regulators have elected to implement substantially all of the Basel III standards. These new standards, including the Supplementary Leverage Ratio imposed by the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, require banks to hold more capital, predominantly in the form of common equity, than under the prior capital framework. These increased bank capital requirements may constrain our ability to obtain attractive future financings and increase the cost of such financings if they are obtained.

U.S. regulators adopted rules requiring enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards that impose capital requirements more stringent than those of the Basel III standards for the most systematically significant banking organizations in the U.S. Adoption and implementation of the Basel III standards and the supplemental regulatory standards adopted by U.S. regulators may negatively impact our access to financing or affect the terms of our future financing arrangements.

Changes in banks’ inter-bank lending rate reporting practices or the method pursuant to which LIBOR is determined may adversely affect the value of the financial obligations to be held or issued by us that are linked to LIBOR.

LIBOR and other indices which are deemed “benchmarks” are the subject of recent national, international, and other regulatory guidance and proposals for reform. Some of these reforms are already effective while others are still to be implemented. These reforms may cause such benchmarks to perform differently than in the past, or have other consequences which cannot be predicted. In particular, regulators and law enforcement agencies in the U.K. and elsewhere are conducting criminal and civil investigations into whether the banks that contributed information to the British Bankers’ Association (“BBA”) in connection with the daily calculation of LIBOR may have been under-reporting or otherwise manipulating or attempting to manipulate LIBOR. A number of BBA member banks have entered into settlements with their regulators and law enforcement agencies with respect to this alleged manipulation of LIBOR. Actions by the regulators or law enforcement agencies, as well as ICE Benchmark Administration (the current administrator of LIBOR), may result in changes to the manner in which LIBOR is determined or the establishment of alternative reference rates. For example, on July 27, 2017, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority announced that it intends to stop persuading or compelling banks to submit LIBOR rates after 2021.

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 in the U.K. or elsewhere. Uncertainty as to the nature of such potential changes, alternative reference rates or other reforms may adversely affect the market for or value of any securities on which the interest or dividend is determined by reference to LIBOR, loans, derivatives and other financial obligations or on our overall financial condition or results of operations.

The development of alternative reference rates is complex.  In the United States, a committee was formed in 2014 to study the process and develop an alternative reference rate. The Alternative Reference Rate Committee (the “ARRC”) selected the SOFR, an overnight secured U.S. Treasury repo rate, as the new rate and adopted a Paced Transition Plan (“PTP”), which provides a framework for the transition from LIBOR to SOFR. SOFR is published daily at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time by the NY Federal Reserve Bank for the previous business day’s trades. However, since SOFR is an overnight rate and many forms of loans or instruments used for hedging have much longer terms, there is a need for a term structure for the new reference rate. Various central banks, including the Fed, and the ARRC, are in the process of developing term rates to support cash markets that currently use LIBOR. Examples of the cash market would be floating rate notes, syndicated and bilateral corporate loans, securitizations, secured funding transactions and various mortgage and consumer loans – including many of the securities the Company owns from time to time such as IIOs.  The Company also uses derivative securities tied to LIBOR to hedge its funding costs.  Development of term rates for derivatives is being conducted by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”).  However, ARRC and ISDA may utilize different mechanisms to develop term rates which may cause potential mismatches between cash products or assets of the Company and hedge instruments.  The process for determining term rates by both ARRC and ISDA is not finalized at this time.

On November 30, 2020, ICE Benchmark Administration (“IBA”), the administrator of LIBOR, with the support of the United States Federal Reserve and the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority, announced plans to consult on ceasing publication of USD LIBOR on December 31, 2021 for only the one week and two month USD LIBOR tenors, and on June 30, 2023 for all other USD LIBOR tenors. While this announcement extends the transition period to June 2023, the United States Federal Reserve concurrently issued a statement advising banks to stop new USD LIBOR issuances by the end of 2021. 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 regulatory activity related to LIBOR’s phaseout could cause LIBOR to perform differently than in the past or cease to exist. Although regulators and IBA have clarified that the recent announcements should not be read to say that LIBOR has ceased or will cease, in the event LIBOR does cease to exist, the risks associated with the transition to an alternative reference rate will be accelerated and magnified.

As of December 31, 2020, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stopped issuing most LIBOR-indexed products and stopped purchasing LIBOR-based loans. On August 3, 2020, Fannie Mae started accepting whole loan and MBS deliveries of ARMs indexed to SOFR, and Freddie Mac announced that it priced its first SOFR linked offering on October 16, 2020.

More generally, any of the above changes or any other consequential changes to LIBOR or any other “benchmark” as a result of international, national or other proposals for reform or other initiatives or investigations, or any further uncertainty in relation to the timing and manner of implementation of such changes, could have a material adverse effect on the value of and return on any securities based on or linked to a “benchmark.”

Our investment in Orchid Island Capital, Inc. or other mortgage REIT common stock may fluctuate in value which materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Investments in the securities of companies that own Agency MBS will be subject to all of the risks associated with the direct ownership of Agency MBS discussed above that could adversely affect the market price of the investment and the ability of the REIT to pay dividends. In addition, the market value of the common stock could be affected by market conditions beyond the Company’s control, such as limited liquidity in trading market for the common stock. A decrease in the dividend payment rate or the market value of the common stock could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, the Company’s ability to dispose of the common stock investment because selling investments in Orchid’s common equity securities may be hindered due to its relationship as Orchid’s manager and the possession of inside information. Also, if we or other significant investors sell or are perceived as intending to sell a substantial number of shares in a short period of time, the market price of our remaining shares could be adversely affected.

The termination of our management agreement with Orchid could significantly reduce our revenues.

Orchid is externally managed and advised by Bimini Advisors. As Manager, Bimini Advisors is responsible for administering Orchid’s business activities and day-to-day operations.  Pursuant to the terms of the management agreement, Bimini Advisors provides Orchid with its management team, including its officers, along with appropriate support personnel.

In exchange for these services, Bimini Advisors receives a monthly management fee.  In addition, Orchid is obligated to reimburse Bimini Advisors for any direct expenses incurred on its behalf and Bimini Advisors allocates to Orchid its pro rata portion of certain overhead costs. The significance of these management fees and overhead reimbursements has increased, and is expected to continue to increase, as Orchid’s capital base continues to grow. If Orchid were to terminate the management agreement without cause, it would be obligated to pay to Bimini Advisors a termination fee equal to three times the average annual management fee, as defined in the management agreement, before or on the last day of the initial term or automatic renewal term.  The loss of these revenues, if it were to occur, would have a severe and immediate impact on the Company.

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

At any time, laws or regulations, or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations, which impact our business and Maryland corporations may be amended. In addition, the markets for MBS and derivatives, including interest rate swaps, have been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent years. We cannot predict when or if any new law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted or promulgated or will become effective. Additionally, revisions to these laws, regulations or administrative interpretations could cause us to change our investments. We could be materially adversely affected by any such change to any existing, or any new, law, regulation or administrative interpretation, which could reduce the market price of our common stock.

We may incur losses as a result of unforeseen or catastrophic events, including the emergence of a pandemic and acts of terrorism.

The occurrence of unforeseen or catastrophic events, including the emergence of a pandemic, such as coronavirus, or other widespread health emergency (or concerns over the possibility of such an emergency) terrorist attacks could create economic and financial disruptions, and could lead to operational difficulties that could impair our ability to manage our businesses.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

Loss of our exemption from regulation under the Investment Company Act would negatively affect the value of shares of our common stock.

We have operated and intend to continue to operate our business so as to be exempt from registration under the Investment Company Act, because we are “primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” Specifically, we invest and intend to continue to invest so that at least 55% of the assets that we own on an unconsolidated basis consist of qualifying mortgages and other liens and interests in real estate, which are collectively referred to as “qualifying real estate assets,” and so that at least 80% of the assets we own on an unconsolidated basis consist of real estate-related assets (including our qualifying real estate assets). We treat Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae whole-pool residential mortgage pass-through securities issued with respect to an underlying pool of mortgage loans in which we hold all of the certificates issued by the pool as qualifying real estate assets based on no-action letters issued by the SEC. To the extent that the SEC publishes new or different guidance with respect to these matters, we may fail to qualify for this exemption.

If we fail to qualify for this exemption, we could be required to restructure our activities in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, which could negatively affect the value of shares of our common stock and our ability to distribute dividends. For example, if the market value of our investments in CMOs or structured Agency MBS, neither of which are qualifying real estate assets for Investment Company Act purposes, were to increase by an amount that resulted in less than 55% of our assets being invested in pass-through Agency MBS, we might have to sell CMOs or structured Agency MBS in order to maintain our exemption from the Investment Company Act. The sale could occur during adverse market conditions, and we could be forced to accept a price below that which we believe is acceptable.

Alternatively, if we fail to qualify for this exemption, we may have to register under the Investment Company Act and we could become subject to substantial regulation with respect to our capital structure (including our ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the Investment Company Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, and other matters.

We may be required at times to adopt less efficient methods of financing certain of our securities, and we may be precluded from acquiring certain types of higher yielding securities. The net effect of these factors would be to lower our net interest income. If we fail to qualify for an exemption from registration as an investment company or an exclusion from the definition of an investment company, our ability to use leverage would be substantially reduced, and we would not be able to conduct our business as described in this prospectus. Our business will be materially and adversely affected if we fail to qualify for and maintain an exemption from regulation pursuant to the Investment Company Act.

Failure to obtain and maintain an exemption from being regulated as a commodity pool operator could subject us to additional regulation and compliance requirements and may result in fines and other penalties which could materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The Dodd-Frank Act established a comprehensive regulatory framework for derivative contracts commonly referred to as “swaps.” As a result, any investment fund that trades in swaps may be considered a “commodity pool,” which would cause its operators (in some cases the fund’s directors) to be regulated as “commodity pool operators,” (“CPOs”).  Under new rules adopted by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (the “CFTC”), those funds that become commodity pools solely because of their use of swaps must register with the National Futures Association (the “NFA”). Registration requires compliance with the CFTC’s regulations and the NFA’s rules with respect to capital raising, disclosure, reporting, recordkeeping and other business conduct.

We use hedging instruments in conjunction with our investment portfolio and related borrowings to reduce or mitigate risks associated with changes in interest rates, mortgage spreads, yield curve shapes and market volatility. These hedging instruments may include interest rate swaps, interest rate futures and options on interest rate futures. We do not currently engage in any speculative derivatives activities or other non-hedging transactions using swaps, futures or options on futures. We do not use these instruments for the purpose of trading in commodity interests, and we do not consider the Company or its operations to be a commodity pool as to which CPO registration or compliance is required. We have received a no-action letter from the CFTC for relief from registration as a commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor.

The CFTC has substantial enforcement power with respect to violations of the laws over which it has jurisdiction, including their anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions. For example, the CFTC may suspend or revoke the registration of or the no-action relief afforded to a person who fails to comply with commodities laws and regulations, prohibit such a person from trading or doing business with registered entities, impose civil money penalties, require restitution and seek fines or imprisonment for criminal violations. In the event that the CFTC asserts that we are not entitled to the no-action letter relief claimed, we may be obligated to furnish additional disclosures and reports, among other things. Further, a private right of action exists against those who violate the laws over which the CFTC has jurisdiction or who willfully aid, abet, counsel, induce or procure a violation of those laws. In the event that we fail to comply with statutory requirements relating to derivatives or with the CFTC’s rules thereunder, including the no-action letter described above, we may be subject to significant fines, penalties and other civil or governmental actions or proceedings, any of which could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our Rights Plan could inhibit a change in our control that would otherwise be favorable to our stockholders.

 

In December 2015, our Board of Directors adopted a Rights Agreement (the “Rights Plan”) in an effort to protect against a possible limitation on our ability to use our net operating losses “(NOLs”) and net capital losses (“NCLs”) by discouraging investors from aggregating ownership of our Class A Common Stock and triggering an “ownership change” for purposes of Sections 382 and 383 of the Code.  Under the terms of the Rights Plan, in general, if a person or group acquires ownership of 4.9% or more of the outstanding shares of our Class A Common Stock without the consent of our Board of Directors (an “Acquiring Person”), all of our other stockholders will have the right to purchase securities from us at a discount to such securities’ fair market value, thus causing substantial dilution to the Acquiring Person.  As a result, the Rights Plan may have the effect of inhibiting or impeding a change in control not approved by our Board of Directors and, notwithstanding its purpose, could adversely affect our shareholders’ ability to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price for our common stock in connection with such a transaction.  In addition, because our Board of Directors may consent to certain transactions, the Rights Plan gives our Board of Directors significant discretion over whether a potential acquirer’s efforts to acquire a large interest in us will be successful.  There can be no assurance that the Rights Plan will prevent an “ownership change” within the meaning of Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, in which case we may lose all or most of the anticipated tax benefits associated with our prior losses.

Certain provisions of applicable law and our charter and bylaws may restrict business combination opportunities that would otherwise be favorable to our stockholders.

Our charter and bylaws and Maryland law contain provisions that may delay, defer or prevent a change in control or other transaction that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders, including business combination provisions, supermajority vote and cause requirements for removal of directors, provisions that vacancies on our Board of Directors may be filled only by the remaining directors, for the full term of the directorship in which the vacancy occurred, the power of our Board of Directors to increase or decrease the aggregate number of authorized shares of stock or the number of shares of any class or series of stock, to cause us to issue additional shares of stock of any class or series and to fix the terms of one or more classes or series of stock without stockholder approval, the restrictions on ownership and transfer of our stock and advance notice requirements for director nominations and stockholder proposals. These provisions, along with the restrictions on ownership and transfer contained in our charter and certain provisions of Maryland law described below, could discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or make it more difficult for a third party to gain control of us, which could adversely affect the market price of our securities.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited, which could limit your recourse in the event of actions that may be considered to be not in your best interests.

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

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

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

We have entered into indemnification agreements with our directors and executive officers that obligate us to indemnify them to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. In addition, our charter authorizes the Company to obligate itself to indemnify our present and former directors and officers for actions taken by them in those and other capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Our bylaws require us, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, to indemnify each present and former director or officer in the defense of any proceeding to which he or she is made, or threatened to be made, a party by reason of his or her service to us. In addition, we may be obligated to advance the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers. As a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights against our directors and officers than might otherwise exist absent the provisions in our charter, bylaws and indemnification agreements or that might exist with other companies.

Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit changes in control.

Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law ( the “MGCL”), may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or impeding a change of control under circumstances that otherwise could provide our stockholders with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our common stock, including:

•

“business combination” provisions that, subject to limitations, prohibit certain business combinations between us and an “interested stockholder” (defined generally as any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of our outstanding voting stock or an affiliate or associate of ours who, at any time within the two-year period immediately prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the voting power of our then-outstanding stock) or an affiliate of an interested stockholder for five years after the most recent date on which the stockholder became an interested stockholder, and thereafter require two supermajority stockholder votes to approve any such combination; and

•

“control share” provisions that provide that a holder of “control shares” of the Company (defined as voting shares of stock which, when aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquiror or in respect of which the acquiror is able to exercise or direct the exercise of voting power (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy), entitle the acquiror to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a “control share acquisition” (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of ownership or control of issued and outstanding “control shares,” subject to certain exceptions) generally has no voting rights with respect to the control shares except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding all interested shares.

We have elected to opt-out of these provisions of the MGCL, in the case of the business combination provisions, by resolution of our Board of Directors (provided that such business combination is first approved by our Board of Directors, including a majority of our directors who are not affiliates or associates of such person), and in the case of the control share provisions, pursuant to a provision in our bylaws. However, our Board of Directors may by resolution elect to repeal the foregoing opt-out from the business combination provisions of the MGCL, and we may, by amendment to our bylaws, opt in to the control share provisions of the MGCL in the future.

U.S. Federal Income Tax Risks

An investment in our common stock has various income tax risks.

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

Our ability to use net operating loss (“NOL”) carryovers and net capital loss (“NCL”) carryovers to reduce our taxable income may be limited.

We must have taxable income or net capital gains to benefit from our NOL and NCL, as well as certain other tax attributes. Although we believe that a significant portion of our NOLs will be available to use to offset the future taxable income of Bimini Capital and Royal Palm, no assurance can be provided that we will have taxable income or gains in the future to apply against our remaining NOLs and NCLs.

 

In addition, our NOL and NCL carryovers may be limited by Sections 382 and 383 of the Code if we undergo an “ownership change.” Generally, an “ownership change” occurs if certain persons or groups increase their aggregate ownership in our company by more than 50 percentage points looking back over the relevant testing period. If an ownership change occurs, our ability to use our NOLs and NCLs to reduce our taxable income in a future year would be limited to a Section 382 limitation equal to the fair market value of our stock immediately prior to the ownership change multiplied by the long-term tax-exempt interest rate in effect for the month of the ownership change. In the event of an ownership change, NOLs and NCLs that exceed the Section 382 limitation in any year will continue to be allowed as carryforwards for the remainder of the carryforward period and such losses can be used to offset taxable income for years within the carryforward period subject to the Section 382 limitation in each year. However, if the carryforward period for any NOL or NCL were to expire before that loss had been fully utilized, the unused portion of that loss would be lost. The carryforward period for NOLs is 20 years from the year in which the losses giving rise to the NOLs were incurred, and the carryforward period for NCL is five years from the year in which the losses giving rise to the NCL were incurred. Our use of new NOLs or NCLs arising after the date of an ownership change would not be affected by the Section 382 limitation (unless there were another ownership change after those new losses arose).

Based on our knowledge of our stock ownership, we do not believe that an ownership change has occurred since our losses were generated. Accordingly, we believe that at the current time there is no annual limitation imposed on our use of our NOLs and NCLs to reduce future taxable income. The determination of whether an ownership change has occurred or will occur is complicated and depends on changes in percentage stock ownership among stockholders. We adopted the Rights Plan described above in order to discourage or prevent an ownership change.  However, there can be no assurance that the Rights Plan will prevent an ownership change. In addition, we have not obtained, and currently do not plan to obtain, a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, regarding our conclusion as to whether our losses are subject to any such limitations. Furthermore, we may decide in the future that it is necessary or in our interest to take certain actions that could result in an ownership change. Therefore, no assurance can be provided as to whether an ownership change has occurred or will occur in the future.

Preserving the ability to use our NOLs and NCLs may cause us to forgo otherwise attractive opportunities.

Limitations imposed by Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code may discourage us from, among other things, redeeming our stock or issuing additional stock to raise capital or to acquire businesses or assets. Accordingly, our desire to preserve our NOLs and NCLs may cause us to forgo otherwise attractive opportunities.

Changes in tax laws could adversely affect our future results.

We have recorded a deferred tax asset in the consolidated balance sheet based on the differences between the financial statement and income tax bases of assets using enacted tax rates.  When U.S. corporate income tax rates change, we are required to reevaluate our deferred tax assets using the new tax rate.  Changes in enacted tax rates require an adjustment to the carrying value of our deferred tax assets with a corresponding charge or benefit to earnings in the period of the tax rate change.  Based on the size of our deferred tax assets, any such adjustment could be significant.

Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest in Our Relationship with Orchid

Bimini Capital and Orchid may compete for opportunities to acquire assets, which are allocated in accordance with the Investment Allocation Agreement by and among Orchid and Bimini Advisors.

From time to time we may seek to purchase for Bimini Capital the same or similar assets that we seek to purchase for Orchid. In such an instance, we may allocate such opportunities in a manner that preferentially favors Orchid. We will make available to either Bimini Capital or Orchid opportunities to acquire assets that we determine, in our reasonable and good faith judgment, based on the objectives, policies and strategies, and other relevant factors, are appropriate for either entity in accordance with the Investment Allocation Agreement among Bimini Capital, Orchid and Bimini Advisors.

Because many of Bimini Capital’s targeted assets are typically available only in specified quantities and because many of our targeted assets are also targeted assets for Orchid, we may not be able to buy as much of any given asset as required to satisfy the needs of both Bimini Capital and Orchid. In these cases, the Investment Allocation Agreement will require the allocation of such assets to both accounts in proportion to their needs and available capital. The Investment Allocation Agreement will permit departure from such proportional allocation when (i) allocating purchases of whole-pool Agency MBS, because those securities cannot be divided into multiple parts to be allocated among various accounts, and (ii) such allocation would result in an inefficiently small amount of the security being purchased for an account. In that case, the Investment Allocation Agreement allows for a protocol of allocating assets so that, on an overall basis, each account is treated equitably.

There are conflicts of interest in our relationships with Orchid, which could result in decisions that may be considered as being not in the best interests of Bimini Capital’s stockholders.

We are subject to conflicts of interest arising out of Bimini Advisors relationship as Manager of Orchid. All of our executive officers may have conflicts between their duties to Bimini Capital and their duties to Orchid as its Manager.

Bimini Capital may acquire or sell assets in which Orchid may have an interest. Similarly, Orchid may acquire or sell assets in which Bimini Capital has or may have an interest. Although such acquisitions or dispositions may present conflicts of interest, we nonetheless may pursue and consummate such transactions. Additionally, Bimini Capital may engage in transactions directly with Orchid, including the purchase and sale of all or a portion of a portfolio asset.

Our officers devote as much time to Bimini Capital and to Orchid as they deem appropriate. However, these officers may have conflicts in allocating their time and services among Bimini Capital and Orchid. During turbulent conditions in the mortgage industry, distress in the credit markets or other times when we will need focused support and assistance from employees, Orchid and other entities for which we may act as manager in the future will likewise require greater focus and attention, placing personnel resources in high demand. In such situations, Bimini Capital may not receive the necessary support and assistance it requires or would otherwise receive if it were not acting as manager of one or more other entities.

Mr. Cauley, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of our Board of Directors, also serves as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Orchid and owns shares of common stock of Orchid at the time of this filing and may continue to hold shares in the future. Mr. Haas, our Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer and President, is a member of the Board of Directors of Orchid, serves as the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer and Treasurer of Orchid and owns shares of common stock of Orchid at the time of this filing and may continue to hold shares in the future.  Mr. Dwyer and Mr. Jaumot, the two independent members of our Board of Directors, own shares of common stock of Orchid at the time of this filing and may continue to own shares in the future.  Accordingly, Messrs. Cauley, Haas, Dwyer and Jaumot may have a conflict of interest with respect to actions by Bimini Capital or Bimini Advisors that relate to Orchid as its Manager.

Bimini continues to hold an investment in the common stock of Orchid. In evaluating opportunities for ourselves and Orchid, this may lead us to emphasize certain asset acquisition, disposition or management objectives over others, such as balancing risk or capital preservation objectives against return objectives. This could increase the risks or decrease the returns of your investment in our common stock.

Orchid may elect not to renew the management agreement without cause which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Orchid may elect not to renew the management agreement, even without cause. The management agreement is automatically renewed in accordance with the terms of the agreement, each year, on February 20. However, with the consent of the majority of their independent directors, and upon providing 180-days’ prior written notice, Orchid may elect not to renew the management agreement. If Orchid elects to not renew the agreement because of a decision by its Board of Directors that the management fee is unfair, Bimini Advisors will have the right to renegotiate a mutually agreeable management fee. If Orchid elects to not renew the management agreement without cause, it is required to pay Bimini Advisors a termination fee equal to three times the average annual management fee incurred during the prior 24-month period immediately preceding the most recently completed calendar quarter prior to the effective date of termination. Notwithstanding the termination fee, nonrenewal of the management agreement may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Investing in our common stock may involve a high degree of risk.

The investments we make in accordance with our investment objectives may result in a high amount of risk when compared to alternative investment options and volatility or loss of principal. Our investments may be highly speculative and aggressive, and therefore an investment in our common stock may not be suitable for someone with lower risk tolerance.

There is a limited market for our Class A Common Stock.

Our Class A Common Stock trades on the OTCQB under the symbol “BMNM”.  We may apply to list our Class A Common Stock on a national securities market if, in the future, we qualify for such a listing. However, even if listed on a national securities market, the ability to buy and sell our Class A Common Stock may be limited due to our small public float, and significant sales may depress or result in a decline in the market price of our Class A Common Stock.  Additionally, until such time that our Class A Common Stock is approved for listing on a national securities market, our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional securities may be limited.   Accordingly, no assurance can be given as to:

•	the likelihood that an actual market for our common stock will develop, or be continued once developed;

•	the liquidity of any such market;

•	the ability of any holder to sell shares of our common stock; or

•	the prices that may be obtained for our common stock.

We have not made distributions to our stockholders since 2011.

Our Board of Directors has not authorized the payment of any cash dividends to our stockholders since 2011.  All distributions will be made at the discretion of our Board of Directors out of funds legally available therefor and will depend on our earnings, our financial condition and such other factors as our Board of Directors may deem relevant from time to time. As a result of the termination of our REIT status effective as of January 1, 2015, we are planning to retain any available funds and future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business. As a result, for the foreseeable future, we do not expect to make distributions.

Future offerings of debt securities, which would be senior to our common stock upon liquidation, or equity securities, which would dilute our existing stockholders and may be senior to our common stock for the purposes of distributions, may harm the value of our common stock.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making additional offerings of debt or equity securities, including commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes and classes of preferred stock or common stock, as well as warrants to purchase shares of common stock or convertible preferred stock. Upon the liquidation of the Company, holders of our debt securities and shares of preferred stock and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings by us may dilute the holdings of our existing stockholders or reduce the market value of our common stock, or both. Furthermore, our Board of Directors may, without stockholder approval, amend our charter to increase the aggregate number of our shares or the number of shares of any class or series that we have the authority to issue, and to classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common stock or preferred stock. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Our stockholders are therefore subject to the risk of our future securities offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting their common stock.

The market value of our common stock may be volatile.

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

•	actual or anticipated variations in our operating results;

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

•	increases in market interest rates that affect the value of our MBS portfolios;

•	changes in our book value;

•	changes in market valuations of similar companies;

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

•	departures of key management personnel;

•	actions by institutional stockholders;

•	speculation in the press or investment community; and

•	general market and economic conditions.

We cannot make any assurances that the market price of our common stock will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future.

Sales of our common stock may harm our share price.

There is very limited liquidity in the trading market for our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock, or the perception that these sales could occur, may harm prevailing market prices for our common stock.

Risks Related to COVID-19

The market and economic disruptions caused by COVID-19 have negatively impacted our business.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused and continues to cause significant disruptions to the U.S. and global economies and has contributed to volatility, illiquidity and dislocations in the financial markets. The COVID-19 outbreak has led governments and other authorities around the world to impose measures intended to control its spread, including restrictions on freedom of movement and business operations such as travel bans, border closings, closing non-essential businesses, quarantines and shelter-in-place orders. The market and economic disruptions caused by COVID-19 have negatively impacted and could further negatively impact our business.

Beginning in mid-March 2020, Agency MBS markets experienced significant volatility and sharp declines in liquidity, which negatively impacted our portfolio. Our portfolio was pledged as collateral under daily mark-to-market repurchase agreements. Fluctuations in the value of our Agency MBS resulted in margin calls, requiring us to post additional collateral with our lenders under these repurchase agreements. These fluctuations and requirements to post additional collateral were material. For example, we sold approximately $171.2 million of Agency MBS during the three months ended March 31, 2020 in order to meet these margin calls and to maintain sufficient liquidity, which resulted in losses of approximately $5.8 million.

The Agency MBS market largely stabilized after the Fed announced on March 23, 2020 that it would purchase Agency MBS and U.S. Treasuries in the amounts needed to support smooth market functioning. The Fed reaffirmed this commitment most recently on January 27, 2021, announcing that it would continue to increase its holdings of U.S. Treasuries and Agency MBS as needed to sustain smooth functioning of markets for these securities. However, if the COVID-19 outbreak continues or worsens, or if the current policy response changes or is ineffective, the Agency MBS market may experience significant volatility, illiquidity and dislocations in the future, which may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our inability to access funding or the terms on which such funding is available could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, particularly in light of ongoing market dislocations resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our ability to fund our operations, meet financial obligations and finance asset acquisitions is dependent upon our ability to secure and maintain our repurchase agreements with our counterparties. Because repurchase agreements are short-term commitments of capital, lenders may respond to market conditions in ways that make it more difficult for us to renew or replace on a continuous basis our maturing short-term borrowings and have imposed and may continue to impose more onerous terms when rolling such financings. If we are not able to renew our existing repurchase agreements or arrange for new financing on terms acceptable to us, or if we are required to post more collateral or face larger haircuts, we may have to curtail our asset acquisition activities and/or dispose of assets.

Issues related to financing are exacerbated in times of significant dislocation in the financial markets, such as those experienced related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is possible our lenders will become unwilling or unable to provide us with financing, and we could be forced to sell our assets at an inopportune time when prices are depressed. In addition, if the regulatory capital requirements imposed on our lenders change, they may be required to significantly increase the cost of the financing that they provide to us. Our lenders also have revised and may continue to revise the terms of such financings, including haircuts and requiring additional collateral in the form of cash, based on, among other factors, the regulatory environment and their management of actual and perceived risk. Moreover, the amount of financing we receive under our repurchase agreements will be directly related to our lenders’ valuation of our assets that collateralize the outstanding borrowings. Typically, repurchase agreements grant the lender the absolute right to re-evaluate the fair market value of the assets that cover outstanding borrowings at any time. If a lender determines in its sole discretion that the value of the assets has decreased, the lender has the right to initiate a margin call. These valuations 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 margin call requires us to transfer additional assets to a lender without any advance of funds from the lender for such transfer or to repay a portion of the outstanding borrowings. Significant margin calls could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, business, and liquidity, and could cause the value of our common stock to decline. In addition, we experienced an increase in haircuts on financings we have rolled. As haircuts are increased, we are required to post additional collateral. We may also be forced to sell assets at significantly depressed prices to meet such margin calls and to maintain adequate liquidity. As a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we experienced margins calls well beyond historical norms. A sufficiently deep and/or rapid increase in margin calls or haircuts will have an adverse impact on our liquidity.

We cannot predict the effect that government policies, laws and plans adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the global recessionary economic conditions will have on us.

Governments have adopted, and may continue to adopt, policies, laws and plans intended to address the COVID-19 pandemic and adverse developments in the economy and continued functioning of the financial markets. We cannot assure you that these programs will be effective, sufficient or will otherwise have a positive impact on our business.

Beginning in the first quarter of 2020, the Fed took significant action to purchase U.S. Treasuries and Agency MBS, support other asset classes and reduce short-term interest rates.  On January 27, 2021, the FOMC announced its intention to continue using its full range of tools, including continuing to increase its holdings of U.S. Treasuries by at least $80 billion per month and its holdings of Agency MBS by at least $40 billion per month until “substantial further progress” has been made towards its maximum employment and price stability goals.  Additionally, the FOMC decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate between 0% and 0.25% and expects to maintain this target range until the labor market reaches maximum employment and will allow inflation to exceed 2% long enough to compensate for the extended period when inflation was below the 2% target.

On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which provided billions of dollars of relief to individuals, businesses, state and local governments, and the health care system suffering the impact of the pandemic, including mortgage loan forbearance and modification programs to qualifying borrowers who had difficulty making their loan payments. As certain time limits imposed in CARES Act programs began to expire, on December 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law an additional $900 billion coronavirus aid package as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, providing for extensions of many of the CARES Act policies and programs as well as additional relief.

The GSEs have also issued guidance on how they will handle servicer advances for loans that back Agency MBS that enter into forbearance, which should limit prepayments during the forbearance period that could have resulted otherwise. The results of these measures are likely to suppress refinancing activity during the forbearance period, but potentially increase refinancing activity once the forbearance period ends as delinquent loans are repurchased by the GSEs. A policy adopted by the GSEs in April 2020 approving the purchase of certain single-family mortgages in forbearance was not extended beyond December, meaning that mortgages originated after December 31, 2020 that enter delinquency or forbearance before delivery to the GSEs are ineligible for delivery. On February 9, 2021, the FHFA extended the foreclosure moratorium begun under the CARES Act for loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to March 31, 2021, and on February 16, 2021, the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department extended the foreclosure moratorium for federally backed loans to June 30, 2021. Borrowers have the right to request and obtain a forbearance of 180 days, and an extension of an additional 180 days, upon a claim of pandemic-related financial hardship. Borrowers may also request up to two additional three-month extensions, up to a maximum of 18 months of total forbearance.

There can be no assurance as to how, in the long term, these and other actions by the U.S. government will affect the efficiency, liquidity and stability of the financial and mortgage markets or prepayments on Agency MBS. To the extent the financial or mortgage markets do not respond favorably to any of these actions, such actions do not function as intended, or prepayments increase materially as a result of these actions, our business, results of operations and financial condition may continue to be materially adversely affected.

Measures intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have disrupted our ability to operate our business.

In response to the outbreak of COVID-19 and the federal and state mandates implemented to control its spread, all of our employees are working remotely. If our employees are unable to work effectively as a result of COVID-19, including because of illness, quarantines, office closures, ineffective remote work arrangements or technology failures or limitations, our operations would be adversely impacted. Further, remote work arrangements may increase the risk of cybersecurity incidents, data breaches or cyber-attacks, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations, due to, among other things, the loss of proprietary data, interruptions or delays in the operation of our business and damage to our reputation.