FORM 10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

X	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010

—	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number: 001-31458


Newcastle Investment Corp.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Maryland				81-0559116
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)				(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)


1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY		10105


(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (212) 798-6100

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


Title of each class:		Name of exchange on which registered:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share		New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)
9.75% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value per share		New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)
8.05% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value per share		New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)
8.375% Series D Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value per share		New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes X No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes X No

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

X Yes No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this form 10-K X

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check One):

Large Accelerated Filer Accelerated Filer X Non-accelerated Filer Smaller Reporting Company

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). (Check One):

Yes X No

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2010 (computed based on the closing price on such date as reported on the NYSE) was: $155 million.

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock was 62,027,184 as of February 17, 2011.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements relate to, among other things, the operating performance of our investments, the stability of our earnings, and our financing needs. Forward-looking statements are generally identifiable by use of forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “potential,” “intend,” “expect,” “endeavor,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “overestimate,” “underestimate,” “believe,” “could,” “project,” “predict,” “continue” or other similar words or expressions. Forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions, discuss future expectations, describe future plans and strategies, contain projections of results of operations or of financial condition or state other forward-looking information. Our ability to predict results or the actual outcome of future plans or strategies is inherently uncertain. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, our actual results and performance could differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results in future periods to differ materially from forecasted results. Factors which could have a material adverse effect on our operations and future prospects include, but are not limited to:

—

reductions in cash flows received from our investments;

—

our ability to take advantage of opportunities in additional asset classes or types of assets at attractive risk-adjusted prices;

—

our ability to deploy capital accretively;

—

the risks that default and recovery rates on our real estate securities and loan portfolios exceed our underwriting estimates;

—

the relationship between yields on assets which are paid off and yields on assets in which such monies can be reinvested;

—

the relative spreads between the yield on the assets we invest in and the cost of financing;

—

changes in economic conditions generally and the real estate and bond markets specifically;

—

adverse changes in the financing markets we access affecting our ability to finance our investments, or in a manner that maintains our historic net spreads;

—

changing risk assessments by lenders that potentially lead to increased margin calls, not extending our repurchase agreements or other financings in accordance with their current terms or entering into new financings with us;

—

changes in interest rates and/or credit spreads, as well as the success of any hedging strategy we may undertake in relation to such changes;

—

the quality and size of the investment pipeline and the rate at which we can invest our cash, including cash inside our CDOs;

—

impairments in the value of the collateral underlying our investments and the relation of any such impairments to our judgments as to whether changes in the market value of our securities, loans or real estate are temporary or not and whether circumstances bearing on the value of such assets warrant changes in carrying values;

—

legislative/regulatory changes, including but not limited to, any modification of the terms of loans;

—

the availability and cost of capital for future investments;

—

competition within the finance and real estate industries; and

—

other risks detailed from time to time below, particularly under the heading “Risk Factors,” and in our other SEC reports.

Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. The factors noted above could cause our actual results to differ significantly from those contained in any forward-looking statement.

Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any of these forward-looking statements, which reflect our management’s views only as of the date of this report. We are under no duty to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this report to conform these statements to actual results.

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING EXHIBITS

In reviewing the agreements included as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, please remember they are included to provide you with information regarding their terms and are not intended to provide any other factual or disclosure information about the Company or the other parties to the agreements. The agreements contain representations and warranties by each of the parties to the applicable agreement. These representations and warranties have been made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the applicable agreement and:

•

should not in all instances be treated as categorical statements of fact, but rather as a way of allocating the risk tone of the parties if those statements provide to be inaccurate;

•

have been qualified by disclosures that were made to the other party in connection with the negotiation of the applicable agreement, which disclosures are not necessarily reflected in the agreement;

•

may apply standards of materiality in a way that is different from what may be viewed as material to you or other investors; and

•

were made only as of the date of the applicable agreement or such other date or dates as may be specified in the agreement and are subject to more recent developments.

Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time. Additional information about the Company may be found elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the Company’s other public filings, which are available without charge through the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. See “Where Readers Can Find Additional Information.”

The Company acknowledges that, notwithstanding the inclusion of the foregoing cautionary statements, it is responsible for considering whether additional specific disclosures of material information regarding material contractual provisions are required to make the statements in this report not misleading.

NEWCASTLE INVESTMENT CORP.

FORM 10-K

INDEX


		Page

	PART I

Item 1.	Business		1

Item 1A.	Risk Factors		13

Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments		32

Item 2.	Properties		32

Item 3.	Legal Proceedings		32

Item 4.	(Removed and Reserved)		32

	PART II

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities		32

Item 6.	Selected Financial Data		34

Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		37

Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		63

Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data		66

	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		67

	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Internal Control over Financial Reporting		68

	Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2010 and 2009		69

	Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008		70

	Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit) for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008		71

	Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008		73

	Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements		75

Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure		113

Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures		113

	Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting		113

Item 9B.	Other Information		114

	PART III

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance		114

Item 11.	Executive Compensation		119

Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters		123

Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence		124

Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services		125

	PART IV

Item 15.	Exhibits; Financial Statement Schedules		126

	Signatures		127

PART I

Item 1.

Business.

Overview

Newcastle Investment Corp. (“Newcastle”) is a real estate investment and finance company. Newcastle invests in, and actively manages, a portfolio of real estate securities, loans and other real estate related assets. Our objective is to maximize the difference between the yield on our investments and the cost of financing these investments while hedging our interest rate risk, where feasible and appropriate. We emphasize portfolio management, asset quality, liquidity, diversification, match funded financing and credit risk management.

We conduct our business through the following segments: (i) investments financed with non-recourse collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”), (ii) investments financed with other non-recourse debt, (iii) investments and debt repurchases financed with recourse debt, (iv) unlevered investments, and (v) corporate. Further details regarding the revenues, net income (loss) and total assets of each of our segments for each of the last three fiscal years are presented in Note 3 to Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

The following table summarizes our segments at December 31, 2010:


	Non-Recourse (A)
	CDOs		Other Non-Recourse (B)		Recourse (C)		Unlevered (D)		Corporate		Inter-segment Elimination (E)		Total
GAAP
Investments	$	2,713,044	$	740,596	$	-	$	39,397	$	-	$	(34,185)	$	3,458,852
Cash and restricted cash		157,005		-		-		12		33,512		-		190,529
Derivative assets		7,067		-		-		-		-		-		7,067
Other assets		29,110		96		-		150		1,307		-		30,663

Total assets		2,906,226		740,692		-		39,559		34,819		(34,185)		3,687,111

Debt		(3,029,273)		(694,787)		(4,683)		-		(51,253)		34,185		(3,745,811)
Derivative liabilities		(160,660)		(16,201)		-		-		-		-		(176,861)
Other liabilities		(6,353)		(2,092)		(2)		(96)		(3,481)		-		(12,024)

Total liabilities		(3,196,286)		(713,080)		(4,685)		(96)		(54,734)		34,185		(3,934,696)

Preferred stock		-		-		-		-		(61,583)		-		(61,583)


GAAP book value	$	(290,060)	$	27,612	$	(4,685)	$	39,463	$	(81,498)	$	-	$	(309,168)

(A)

Assets held within CDOs and other non-recourse structures are not available to satisfy obligations outside of such financings, except to the extent we receive net cash flow distributions from such structures. Furthermore, our economic losses from such structures cannot exceed our invested equity in them and economically their book value cannot be less than zero. Therefore, impairment recorded in excess of our investment, which results in negative GAAP book value for a given non-recourse financing structure, cannot economically be incurred and will eventually be reversed through amortization, sales at gains, or as gains at the deconsolidation or termination of such non-recourse financing structure.

(B)

Included in the other non-recourse segment was $403.8 million of Investments and Debt at December 31, 2010, representing the loans subject to call option of the two subprime securitizations and the corresponding financing.

(C)

The $4.7 million recourse debt was secured by $46.3 million of notes issued by Newcastle CDO VI, which was repurchased by Newcastle in December 2010 and was eliminated in consolidation.

(D)

The following table summarizes the investments in the unlevered segment as of December 31, 2010:


	Outstanding Face Amount		Carrying Value		Number of Investments
Real estate securities	$	186,081	$	600		25
Real estate related loans*		97,106		32,475		5
Residential mortgage loans		1,169		298		27
Other investments		N/A		6,024		1

	$	284,356	$	39,397		58

* A mezzanine loan with a $28.0 million face amount and carrying value was repaid in full in February 2011.

(E)

Represents the elimination of investments and financings and their related income and expenses between segments as the corresponding inter-segment investments and financings are presented on a gross basis within each segment.

Our investments currently cover four distinct categories:


1) Real Estate Securities:		We underwrite, acquire and manage a diversified portfolio of credit sensitive real estate securities, including commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS), senior unsecured REIT debt issued by REITs, real estate related



		asset backed securities (ABS), including subprime securities, and FNMA/FHLMC securities. As of December 31, 2010, our real estate securities represented 50.5% of our assets.

2) Real Estate Related Loans:		We acquire and originate loans to real estate owners, including B-notes, mezzanine loans, corporate bank loans, and whole loans. As of December 31, 2010, our real estate related loans represented 21.1% of our assets.

3) Residential Mortgage Loans:		We acquire residential mortgage loans, including manufactured housing loans and subprime mortgage loans. As of December 31, 2010, our residential mortgage loans represented 10.3% of our assets.

4) Operating Real Estate:		We acquire and manage direct and indirect interests in operating real estate. As of December 31, 2010, our operating real estate represented 0.9% of our assets.

In addition, Newcastle had restricted and unrestricted cash and other miscellaneous net assets, which represented 17.2% of our assets at December 31, 2010.

Newcastle’s stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “NCT.” Newcastle is a real estate investment trust for federal income tax purposes and is externally managed and advised by an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group LLC, or Fortress. For its services, our manager is entitled to a management fee and incentive compensation pursuant to a management agreement. Fortress, through its affiliates, and principals of Fortress collectively owned 3.8 million shares of our common stock and Fortress, through its affiliates, had options to purchase an additional 1.7 million shares of our common stock, which were issued in connection with our equity offerings, representing approximately 8.6% of our common stock on a fully diluted basis, as of December 31, 2010.

During the year ended December 31, 2010, Newcastle actively pursued opportunities to strengthen our balance sheet. We executed a number of transactions that reduced our long-term and short-term debt obligations, thereby improving our liquidity position and increasing value for our common stockholders.

Highlighted below are the significant transactions executed during the year.

•

In January 2010, we entered into an exchange agreement pursuant to which we exchanged $52.1 million face amount of Newcastle’s junior subordinated notes payable for (i) the payment of $9.7 million of cash, and (ii) the reissuance of $37.6 million face amount of CDO bonds payable (which had previously been repurchased by Newcastle).

•

In March 2010, we exchanged 9,091,668 shares of our common stock and $16.0 million of cash for 1,152,679 shares of Series B Preferred stock, 1,104,000 shares of Series C Preferred stock, and 1,380,000 shares of Series D Preferred stock.

•

In April 2010, we completed a securitization transaction to refinance approximately $164.1 million outstanding principal balance of manufactured housing loans. We issued approximately $134.5 million aggregate principal amount of asset-backed notes, of which $97.6 million was sold to third parties and $36.9 million was sold to certain CDOs managed and consolidated by Newcastle. We used the gross proceeds received from the issuance of the notes to repay the previously existing financing on this portfolio in full, terminate the related interest rate swap contracts, pay the related transaction costs and increase our unrestricted cash by approximately $14 million.

•

In December 2010, we completed a series of transactions whereby we repurchased approximately $257 million current principal balance of Newcastle CDO VI Class I-MM notes (the “Notes”) at a price of 67.5% of par. We purchased the Notes using a combination of restricted cash, unrestricted cash and proceeds from a new repurchase facility. The $18.7 million (as of December 31, 2010) repurchase facility has a one-year term and bears interest at a rate of LIBOR + 1.50%.

The following table compares the beginning and the end of year balances of our unrestricted cash, certain of our debt obligations, preferred and common stocks of Newcastle (dollars in thousands):


	December 31, 2010		December 31, 2009

Unrestricted cash	$	33,524	$	68,300


Non-recourse debt obligations ⁽¹⁾
CDO bonds payable ⁽²⁾	$	3,010,868	$	4,058,928
Other bonds payable		256,809		303,697
Notes payable		4,356		-
Repurchase agreements		14,049		-

	$	3,286,082	$	4,362,625


Recourse debt obligations
Repurchase agreements	$	4,683	$	71,309
Junior subordinated notes payable		51,253		103,264

	$	55,936	$	174,573


Preferred stocks - Liquidation Preference	$	61,583	$	152,500


Common stock - Shares Outstanding		62,027,184		52,912,513

(1)

Excluding the financing of subprime mortgage loans subject to call option which was non-economic as of the applicable date.

(2)

$409.0 million of CDO bonds payable outstanding at December 31, 2009 was deconsolidated upon the adoption of a new accounting pronouncement on January 1, 2010.

Our Investment Strategy

Newcastle’s investment strategy focuses predominantly on debt investments secured by real estate. Our investment guidelines are purposefully broad to enable us to make investments in a wide array of assets, including, but not limited to, any assets that can be held by real estate investment trusts. We do not have specific policies as to the allocation among type of real estate related assets or investment categories since our investment decisions depend on changing market conditions. Instead, we focus on relative value and in-depth risk/reward analysis. Our focus on relative value means that assets which may be unattractive under particular market conditions may, if priced appropriately to compensate for risks such as projected defaults and prepayments, become attractive relative to other available investments. We generally utilize a match funded financing strategy, when appropriate and available, and active management as part of our investment strategy. As discussed in Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Market Conditions,” the continued challenging credit and liquidity conditions in the markets have reduced the current values of substantially all of our investments from historical levels, and has resulted in impairments in certain investments.

The following summarizes our investment portfolio at December 31, 2010 (dollars in millions):


	Outstanding Face Amount		Amortized Cost Basis (1)		Percentage of Total Amortized Cost Basis		Carrying Value		Number of Investments		Credit (2)		Weighted Average Life (years) (3)
Investment (7)
Commercial (4)
CMBS	$	1,971	$	1,265		42.7%	$	1,301		261		BB		3.1
Mezzanine Loans		580		389		13.1%		389		17		64%		1.9
B-Notes		233		155		5.2%		155		9		77%		1.8
Whole Loans		31		31		1.0%		31		3		48%		2.8
Other Investment (5)		25		25		0.8%		25		1		-		-

Total Commercial Assets		2,840		1,865		62.8%		1,901						2.8


Residential
Manufactured Housing and Residential Mortgage Loans		428		371		12.5%		371		11,287		704		6.6
Subprime Securities		353		161		5.4%		178		88		B-		5.0
Real Estate ABS		66		43		1.5%		45		20		BB		3.6

		847		575		19.4%		594						5.7


FNMA/FHLMC securities		3		3		0.1%		3		1		AAA		3.2

Total Residential Assets		850		578		19.5%		597						5.7


Corporate
REIT Debt		317		316		10.7%		329		40		BB+		3.5
Corporate Bank Loans		309		208		7.0%		208		9		CC		3.4

Total Corporate Assets		626		524		17.7%		537						3.4


TOTAL / WA	$	4,316	$	2,967		100.0%	$	3,035						3.4

Reconciliation to GAAP total assets:
Other assets
Subprime mortgage loans subject to call option (6)								404
Real estate held for sale								9
Cash and restricted cash								191
Other								48

GAAP total assets							$	3,687

WA – Weighted average, in all tables.

⁽¹⁾	Net of impairments.

⁽²⁾

Credit represents the weighted average of minimum rating for rated assets, the loan-to-value ratio (based on the appraised value at the time of purchase or refinancing) for non-rated commercial assets, or the FICO score for non-rated residential assets and an implied AAA rating for FNMA/FHLMC securities. Ratings provided above were determined by third party rating agencies as of a particular date, may not be current and are subject to change (including a “negative watch” assignment) at any time.

⁽³⁾	Weighted average life is based on the timing of expected principal reduction on the asset.

⁽⁴⁾	Excludes eight CDO securities with an aggregate face amount of $123.1 million and a zero basis. Five CDOs bond were issued by third parties and three CDO bonds were issued by CDO VII, which was deconsolidated, and held as investments by Newcastle.

⁽⁵⁾	Represents an equity investment in a real estate owned property.

⁽⁶⁾	Our subprime mortgage loans subject to call option are excluded from the statistics because they result from an option, not an obligation, to repurchase such loans, are noneconomic until such option is exercised, and are offset by an equal liability on the consolidated balance sheet.

⁽⁷⁾	The following tables summarize certain supplemental data relating to our investments (dollars in tables in thousands):

CMBS


Deal Vintage (A)	Average Minimum Rating (B)	Number	Outstanding Face Amount		Amortized Cost Basis		Percentage of Amortized Cost Basis		Carrying Value		Delinquency 60+/FC/REO (C)		Principal Subordination (D)		Weighted Average Life (years) (E)
Pre 2004	BB+	82	$	425,785	$	384,726		30.4%	$	362,743		5.7%		10.8%		2.3
2004	B+	61		417,733		245,642		19.4%		205,078		4.2%		6.0%		2.8
2005	B+	37		383,212		177,506		14.0%		210,487		5.3%		8.1%		3.2
2006	BB+	54		492,424		346,327		27.4%		390,691		4.5%		12.4%		3.5
2007	B+	24		203,871		66,699		5.3%		86,823		9.8%		11.5%		2.9
2010	BB	3		48,000		44,460		3.5%		44,912		0.0%		2.4%		9.8

Total /WA	BB	261	$	1,971,025	$	1,265,360		100.0%	$	1,300,734		5.3%		9.5%		3.1

(A)

The year in which the securities were originally issued.

(B)

Ratings provided above were determined by third party rating agencies as of a particular date, may not be current and are subject to change (including a “negative watch” assignment) at any time. We had approximately $203.7 million of CMBS assets that are on negative watch for possible downgrade by at least one rating agency as of December 31, 2010.

(C)

The percentage of underlying loans that are 60+ days delinquent, or in foreclosure or considered real estate owned (REO).

(D)

The percentage of the outstanding face amount of securities that is subordinate to our investments.

(E)

Weighted average life is based on the timing of expected principal reduction on the asset.

Mezzanine Loans, B-Notes and Whole Loans


Asset Type	Number		Outstanding Face Amount		Amortized Cost Basis		Percentage of Total Amortized Cost Basis		Carrying Value		Weighted Average First Dollar Loan to Value (A)		Weighted Average Last Dollar Loan to Value (A)		Delinquency (B)
Mezzanine Loans		17	$	579,579	$	388,510		67.7%	$	388,510		52.5%		64.0%		13.2%
B-Notes		9		233,132		154,760		26.9%		154,760		62.2%		76.6%		19.3%
Whole Loans		3		30,970		30,970		5.4%		30,970		0.0%		48.2%		0.0%

Total/WA		29	$	843,681	$	574,240		100.0%	$	574,240		53.3%		66.9%		14.4%

(A)

Loan to value is based on the appraised value at the time of purchase or refinancing.

(B)

The percentage of underlying loans that are non-performing, in foreclosure, under bankruptcy filing or considered real estate owned.

Manufactured Housing and Residential Loans


Deal	Average FICO Score (A)		Outstanding Face Amount		Amortized Cost Basis		Percentage of Total Amortized Cost Basis		Carrying Value		Average Loan Age (months)		Original Balance		Delinquency 90+/FC/REO (B)		Cumulative Loss to Date
Manufactured Housing Loans Portfolio I		703	$	152,450	$	123,042		33.2%	$	123,042		111	$	327,855		1.3%		6.8%
Manufactured Housing Loans Portfolio II		702		212,036		198,275		53.4%		198,275		140		434,743		1.4%		4.9%
Residential Loans Portfolio I		715		59,604		46,235		12.5%		46,235		90		646,357		8.2%		0.3%
Residential Loans Portfolio II		737		3,795		3,495		0.9%		3,495		74		83,950		0.0%		0.0%

Total / WA		704	$	427,885	$	371,047		100.0%	$	371,047		122	$	1,492,905		2.3%		4.9%

(A)

Based on updated FICO scores provided by the loan servicer of the manufactured housing loan portfolios and original FICO scores for the residential loan portfolios as the loan servicers of the residential loan portfolios do not provide updated FICO scores.

(B)

The percentage of loans that are 90+ days delinquent, or in foreclosure or considered real estate owned.

Subprime Securities ^(A)


	Security Characteristics
Vintage (B)	Average Minimum Rating (C)	Number of Securities		Outstanding Face Amount		Amortized Cost Basis		Percentage of Total Amortized Cost Basis		Carrying Value		Principal Subordination (D)		Excess Spread (E)
2003	B		15	$	19,154	$	10,649		6.6%	$	10,741		22.6%		4.0%
2004	B		28		82,845		28,277		17.5%		30,924		16.9%		3.9%
2005	CCC+		25		93,269		28,341		17.6%		36,520		28.2%		4.5%
2006	CCC+		10		83,095		46,425		28.7%		48,477		31.6%		4.8%
2007 and later	B+		10		74,943		47,772		29.6%		51,344		19.5%		3.1%


Total /WA	B-		88	$	353,306	$	161,464		100.0%	$	178,006		24.2%		4.1%


	Collateral Characteristics
Vintage (B)	Average Loan Age (months)		Collateral Factor (F)		3 month CPR (G)		Delinquency (H)		Cumulative Losses to Date
2003		94		0.10		8.8%		19.7%		3.2%
2004		80		0.13		9.8%		21.0%		3.6%
2005		68		0.19		8.6%		33.0%		8.5%
2006		56		0.39		10.1%		31.4%		16.6%
2007 and later		40		0.45		7.8%		19.7%		13.2%


Total / WA		64		0.28		9.1%		26.3%		9.9%

Real Estate ABS


	Security Characteristics
Asset Type	Average Minimum Rating ^(C)		Number		Outstanding Face Amount		Amortized Cost Basis Amount		Percentage of Total Amortized Cost Basis			Carrying Value		Principal Subordination ^(D)			Excess Spread ^(E)
Manufactured Housing		BBB+		7	$	35,137	$	34,101		80.3	%	$	35,215		39.4	%		1.5	%
Small Business Loans		CCC		13		30,228		8,374		19.7	%		9,963		15.1	%		3.4	%

Total / WA		BB		20	$	65,365	$	42,475		100.0	%	$	45,178		28.1	%		2.4	%


	Collateral Characteristics
Asset Type	Average Loan Age (months)		Collateral Factor ^(F)		3 Month CPR ^(G)			Delinquency ^(H)			Cumulative Loss to Date
Manufactured Housing		138		0.28		6.2	%		2.3	%		12.6	%
Small Business Loans		75		0.54		6.7	%		29.4	%		7.2	%

Total / WA		109		0.40		6.4	%		14.8	%		10.1	%

(A)

Includes subprime retained securities in the securitizations of Subprime Portfolios I and II. For further information on these securitizations, see Note 5 to our consolidated financial statements included herein.

(B)

The year in which the securities were issued.

(C)

Ratings provided above were determined by third party rating agencies as of a particular date, may not be current and are subject to change (including a “negative watch” assignment) at any time. We had approximately $95.5 million of ABS securities that are on negative watch for possible downgrade by at least one rating agency as of December 31, 2010.

(D)

The percentage of the outstanding face amount of securities and residual interests that is subordinate to our investments.

(E)

The annualized amount of interest received on the underlying loans in excess of the interest paid on the securities, as a percentage of the outstanding collateral balance.

(F)

The ratio of original unpaid principal balance of loans still outstanding.

(G)

Three month average constant prepayment rate.

(H)

The percentage of underlying loans that are 90+ days delinquent, in foreclosure, or considered real estate owned.

REIT Debt


Industry	Average Minimum Rating ^(A)	Number		Outstanding Face Amount		Amortized Cost Basis		Percentage of Total Amortized Cost Basis		Carrying Value
Retail	BBB+		10	$	75,665	$	71,962		22.8%	$	81,911
Diversified	CCC+		8		71,036		71,613		22.7%		67,305
Office	BBB-		9		80,127		81,304		25.7%		83,869
Multifamily	BBB		3		12,765		12,818		4.0%		13,539
Hotel	BBB-		3		29,220		29,598		9.4%		30,785
Healthcare	BBB-		5		41,600		41,673		13.2%		44,215
Storage	A-		1		5,000		5,052		1.6%		5,360
Industrial	BB-		1		2,000		2,065		0.6%		1,986

Total / WA	BB+		40	$	317,413	$	316,085		100.0%	$	328,970

Corporate Bank Loans


Industry	Average Minimum Rating ^(A)	Number		Outstanding Face Amount		Amortized Cost Basis		Percentage of Total Amortized Cost Basis		Carrying Value
Real Estate	CC		3	$	35,898	$	34,021		16.3%	$	34,021
Media	CCC-		2		111,764		44,985		21.6%		44,985
Resorts	NR		1		116,649		86,649		41.6%		86,649
Restaurant	B		2		18,136		16,326		7.8%		16,326
Transportation	NR		1		26,990		26,384		12.7%		26,384

Total / WA	CC		9	$	309,437	$	208,365		100.0%	$	208,365

(A)

Ratings provided above were determined by third party rating agencies as of a particular date, may not be current and are subject to change (including a “negative watch” assignment) at any time. None of the REIT assets or bank loans were on negative watch for possible downgrade by at least one rating agency as of December 31, 2010.

Credit Risk Management

Credit risk refers to the ability of each individual borrower under our loans and securities to make required interest and principal payments on the scheduled due dates. We strive to reduce credit risk by actively monitoring our asset portfolio and the underlying credit quality of our holdings and, where appropriate, repositioning our investments to upgrade their credit quality and yield. A significant portion of our investments are financed with collateralized debt obligations, known as CDOs. Our CDO financings offer us the structural flexibility to buy and sell certain investments to manage risk and, subject to certain limitations, to optimize returns.

Further, while the expected yield on our real estate securities, which comprise a meaningful portion of our assets, is sensitive to the performance of the underlying loans, the first risk of default and loss - referred to as a “first loss” position- is borne by the more subordinated securities or other features of the securitization transaction, in the case of commercial mortgage and asset backed securities, and the issuer’s underlying equity and subordinated debt, in the case of senior unsecured REIT debt securities. As a result of the continued challenging credit and liquidity conditions in the markets, the value of the subordinated securities has generally been reduced or, in some cases, eliminated, which could leave our securities economically in a first loss position. We also invest in loans and securities which represent “first loss” positions; in other words, they do not benefit from credit support although we believe at acquisition they predominantly benefit from underlying collateral value in excess of their carrying amounts.

Our Financing and Hedging Activities

We employ leverage as part of our investment strategy. We do not have a predetermined target debt to equity ratio as we believe the appropriate leverage for the particular assets we are financing depends on the credit quality of those assets. As a result of our negative GAAP equity, our GAAP debt to equity ratio is not a meaningful measure as of December 31, 2010. As of December 31, 2010 and as of the date of this Annual Report, we have complied with the general investment guidelines adopted by our board of directors that limit total leverage. We utilize leverage for the sole purpose of financing our portfolio and not for the purpose of speculating on changes in interest rates.

We strive to maintain access to a broad array of capital resources in an effort to insulate our business from potential fluctuations in the availability of capital. We utilize multiple forms of financing, including collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), other securitizations, term loans, and trust preferred securities, as well as short term financing in the form of loans and repurchase agreements. Further details regarding the forms of financing that we are currently able to utilize are presented in Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” under “– Market Considerations” and “– Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

Our manager may elect for us to bear a level of refinancing risk on a short term or longer term basis, such as is the case with investments financed with repurchase agreements, when, based on all of the relevant factors, the manager determines that bearing such risk is advisable or unavoidable.

We attempt to reduce refinancing and interest rate risks through the use of match funded financing structures, when appropriate and available, whereby we seek (i) to match the maturities of our debt obligations with the maturities of our assets and (ii) to match the interest rates on our investments with like-kind debt (i.e., floating rate assets are financed with floating rate debt and fixed rate assets are financed with fixed rate debt), directly or through the use of interest rate swaps, interest rate caps or other financial instruments, or through a combination of these strategies. We believe this allows us to reduce the risk that we have to refinance our liabilities prior to the maturities of our assets and to reduce the impact of changing interest rates on our earnings.

We have entered into hedging transactions to protect our positions from interest rate fluctuations and other changes in market conditions, and we may continue to do so, when feasible and appropriate. These transactions predominantly include interest rate swaps, interest rate caps and may include the purchase or sale of interest rate collars, caps or floors, options, mortgage derivatives and other hedging instruments, and may be subject to margin calls. These instruments may be used to hedge as much of the interest rate risk as our manager determines is in the best interest of our stockholders, given the cost of such hedges and the need to maintain our status as a REIT. Our manager elects to have us bear a level of interest rate risk that could otherwise be hedged when our manager believes, based on its analysis, that bearing such risks is advisable or unavoidable. We engage in hedging for the purpose of protecting against interest rate risk and not for the purpose of speculating on changes in interest rates. We note that new hedging transactions with respect to many types of hedging instruments may impose liquidity constraints on us or may be uneconomical for us to obtain. As a result, we currently face meaningful challenges in entering into hedging transactions to protect new investments from interest rate fluctuations and other changes in market conditions.

Further details regarding our hedging activities are presented in Part II, Item 7A, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk-Fair Value.”

Debt Obligations

The following table presents certain summary information regarding our debt obligations and related hedges as of December 31, 2010 (unaudited) (dollars in thousands):


									Face		Collateral
Debt Obligation	Outstanding Face Amount		Carrying Value		Weighted Average Funding Cost (1)		Weighted Average Maturity (Years)		Amount of Floating Rate Debt		Outstanding Face Amount (2)		Amortized Cost Basis (2)		Carrying Value (2)		Weighted Average Maturity (Years)		Floating Rate Face Amount (2)		Aggregate Notional Amount of Current Hedges (3)

CDO Bonds Payable	$	3,010,751	$	3,010,868		3.16%		3.6	$	2,972,666	$	3,911,985	$	2,765,735	$	2,836,265		3.3	$	1,610,364	$	1,702,314

Other Bonds Payable		258,324		256,809		5.42%		1.5		171,972		363,317		328,027		328,027		6.6		38,458		129,198

Notes Payable		4,356		4,356		1.16%		6.8		4,356		4,356		4,356		4,356		6.8		4,356		-

Repurchase Agreements (4)		18,732		18,732		1.76%		0.9		18,732		-		-		-		-		-		-

Junior Subordinated
Notes Payable		51,004		51,253		7.42%		24.3		-		-		-		-		-		-		-


Subtotal debt obligations		3,343,167		3,342,018		3.39%		3.8	$	3,167,726	$	4,279,658	$	3,098,118	$	3,168,648		3.5	$	1,653,178	$	1,831,512


Financing on Subprime Mortgage Loans Subject to Call Option		406,217		403,793


Total debt obligations	$	3,749,384	$	3,745,811

(1)	Including the effect of applicable hedges.

(2)	Including restricted cash held for reinvestment in CDOs.

(3)

Including a $36.4 million notional amount of interest rate cap agreements in CDO X, an $88.0 million notional amount of interest rate swap agreements in CDO VI and a $129.2 million notional amount of interest rate swap agreements in MH Loans Portfolio II, which were economic hedges not designated as hedges for accounting purposes. Excluding a $126.4 million notional amount interest rate swap agreement which was a non-economic hedge in CDO VI.

(4)	This repurchase agreement was secured by $46.3 million of notes issued by Newcastle CDO VI, which was repurchased by Newcastle in December 2010 and eliminated in consolidation. As of December 31, 2010, the maximum recourse to Newcastle was $4.7 million.

Further details regarding our debt obligations are presented in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources,” as well as Note 8 to Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Formation

We were formed in June 2002 and had our initial public offering in October 2002.

The following table presents information on shares of our common stock issued since our formation:


Year	Shares Issued		Range of Issue Prices (1)		Net Proceeds (millions)
Formation - 2005		43,913,409
2006		1,800,408		$29.42		$51.2
2007		7,065,362		$27.75-$31.30		$201.3
2008		9,871		N/A		$0.1
2009		123,463		N/A		$0.1
2010		9,114,671		$3.13		$28.5

December 31, 2010		62,027,184

(1)	Excludes prices of shares issued pursuant to the exercise of options and of shares issued to our independent directors. Includes prices of shares issued in exchange for preferred shares.

Investment Guidelines

Our general investment guidelines, adopted by our board of directors, include:

—

no investment is to be made which would cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT;

—

no investment is to be made which would cause us to be regulated as an investment company;

—

no more than 20% of our total equity, determined as of the date of such investment, is to be invested in any single asset;

—

our leverage (as defined in our governing documents) is not to exceed 90% of the sum of our total debt and our total equity; and

—

we are not to co-invest with the manager or any of its affiliates unless (i) our co-investment is otherwise in accordance with these guidelines and (ii) the terms of such co-investment are at least as favorable to us as to the manager or such affiliate (as applicable) making such co-investment.

In addition, our manager is required to seek the approval of the independent members of our board of directors before we engage in a material transaction with another entity managed by our manager or any of its affiliates. These investment guidelines may be changed by our board of directors without the approval of our stockholders.

The Management Agreement

We are party to a management agreement with FIG LLC, an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group LLC, dated June 23, 2003, pursuant to which FIG LLC, our manager, provides for the day-to-day management of our operations.

The management agreement requires our manager to manage our business affairs in conformity with the policies and the investment guidelines that are approved and monitored by our board of directors. Our manager manages our operations under the direction of our board of directors. The manager is responsible for, among other things, (i) the purchase and sale of real estate securities and loans and other real estate related assets, (ii) the financing of our real estate securities and loans and other real estate related assets, (iii) management of our real estate, including arranging for purchases, sales, leases, maintenance and insurance, (iv) the purchase, sale and servicing of loans for us, and (v) investment advisory services. Our manager is responsible for our day-to-day operations and performs (or causes to be performed) such services and activities relating to our assets and operations as may be appropriate.

We pay our manager an annual management fee equal to 1.5% of our gross equity, as defined in the management agreement. The management agreement provides that we will reimburse our manager for various expenses incurred by our manager or its officers, employees and agents on our behalf, including costs of legal, accounting, tax, auditing, administrative and other similar services rendered for us by providers retained by our manager or, if provided by our manager’s employees, in amounts which are no greater than those which would be payable to outside professionals or consultants engaged to perform such services pursuant to agreements negotiated on an arm’s-length basis.

To provide an incentive for our manager to enhance the value of our common stock, our manager is entitled to receive an incentive return (the “Incentive Compensation”) on a cumulative, but not compounding, basis in an amount equal to the product of (A) 25% of the dollar amount by which (1) (a) our funds from operations (defined as the net income available

for common stockholders before the Incentive Compensation, excluding extraordinary items, plus depreciation of operating real estate, and after adjusting for unconsolidated subsidiaries, if any) per share of common stock (based on the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding) plus (b) gains (or losses) from debt restructuring and from sales of property and other assets per share of common stock (based on the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding), exceed (2) an amount equal to (a) the weighted average of the price per share of common stock in our initial public offering and the value attributed to the net assets transferred to us by Newcastle Investment Holdings, and in any of our subsequent offerings (adjusted for prior capital dividends or capital distributions) multiplied by (b) a simple interest rate of 10% per annum (divided by four to adjust for quarterly calculations) multiplied by (B) the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding. Our manager earned no incentive compensation during 2010, 2009 or the second half of 2008. We expect that there will be no incentive compensation payable to our manager for an indeterminate period of time.

The management agreement provides for automatic one year extensions. Our independent directors review our manager’s performance annually and the management agreement may be terminated annually upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors, or by a vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock, based upon unsatisfactory performance that is materially detrimental to us or a determination by our independent directors that the management fee earned by our manager is not fair, subject to our manager’s right to prevent such a management fee compensation termination by accepting a mutually acceptable reduction of fees. Our manager must be provided with 60 days’ prior notice of any such termination and would be paid a termination fee equal to the amount of the management fee earned by our manager during the twelve month period preceding such termination, which may make it difficult and costly for us to terminate the management agreement. Following any termination of the management agreement, we shall be entitled to purchase our manager’s right to receive the Incentive Compensation at a price determined as if our assets were sold for cash at their then current fair market value (as determined by an appraisal, taking into account, among other things, the expected future value of the underlying investments) or otherwise we may continue to pay the Incentive Compensation to our manager. In addition, if we do not purchase our manager’s Incentive Compensation, our manager may require us to purchase the same at the price discussed above. In addition, the management agreement may be terminated by us at any time for cause.

Policies with Respect to Certain Other Activities

Subject to the approval of our board of directors, we have the authority to offer our common stock or other equity or debt securities in exchange for property and to repurchase or otherwise reacquire our shares or any other securities and may engage in such activities in the future.

We also may make loans to, or provide guarantees of certain obligations of, our subsidiaries.

Subject to the percentage ownership and gross income and asset tests necessary for REIT qualification, we may invest in securities of other REITs, other entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers, including for the purpose of exercising control over such entities.

We may engage in the purchase and sale of investments.

Our officers and directors may change any of these policies and our investment guidelines without a vote of our stockholders.

In the event that we determine to raise additional equity capital, our board of directors has the authority, without stockholder approval (subject to certain NYSE requirements), to issue additional common stock or preferred stock in any manner and on such terms and for such consideration it deems appropriate, including in exchange for property.

Decisions regarding the form and other characteristics of the financing for our investments are made by our manager subject to the general investment guidelines adopted by our board of directors.

Competition

We are subject to significant competition in seeking investments. We compete with several other companies for investments, including other REITs, insurance companies and other investors. Some of our competitors have advantages over us, such as greater resources than we possess, or greater access to capital or various types of financing than are available to us, and we may not be able to compete successfully for investments. See “Part 1, Item 1A, Risk Factors – We are subject to significant competition and may not compete successfully.”

Compliance with Applicable Environmental Laws

Properties we own (directly or indirectly) or may acquire are or would be subject to various foreign, federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations. Under these laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous owner of real estate (including, in certain circumstances, a secured lender that succeeds to ownership or control of a property) may become liable for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum product released at, on, under or in its property. These laws typically impose cleanup responsibility and liability without regard to whether the owner or control party knew of or was responsible for the release or presence of the hazardous or toxic substances. The costs of investigation, remediation or removal of these substances may be substantial and could exceed the value of the property. An owner or control party of a site may be subject to common law claims by third parties based on damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from a site. Certain environmental laws also impose liability in connection with the handling of or exposure to asbestos-containing materials, pursuant to which third parties may seek recovery from owners of real properties for personal injuries associated with asbestos-containing materials. Our operating costs and values of these assets may be adversely affected by the obligation to pay for the cost of complying with existing environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, as well as the cost of complying with future legislation, and our income and ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be affected adversely by the existence of an environmental liability with respect to our properties. We endeavor to ensure that properties we own or acquire will be in compliance in all material respects with all foreign, federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations regarding hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products.

Employees

As described above under “The Management Agreement,” we are managed by FIG LLC, an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group LLC. As a result, we have no employees. From time to time, certain of our officers may enter into written agreements with us that memorialize the provision of certain services; these agreements do not provide for the payment of any cash compensation to such officers from us. The employees of FIG LLC are not a party to any collective bargaining agreement.

Corporate Governance and Internet Address; Where Readers Can Find Additional Information

We emphasize the importance of professional business conduct and ethics through our corporate governance initiatives. Our board of directors consists of a majority of independent directors; the Audit, Nominating and Corporate Governance, and Compensation committees of our board of directors are composed exclusively of independent directors. We have adopted corporate governance guidelines, and our manager has adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, which delineate our standards for our officers and directors, and employees of our manager.

Newcastle files annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Readers may read and copy any document that Newcastle files at the SEC’s Public Reference Room located at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549, U.S.A. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the Public Reference Room. Our SEC filings are also available to the public from the SEC’s internet site at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of these reports, proxy statements and other information can also be inspected at the offices of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 20 Broad Street, New York, New York 10005, U.S.A.

Our internet site is http://www.newcastleinv.com. We make available free of charge through our internet site our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and Forms 3, 4 and 5 filed on behalf of directors and executive officers and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Also posted on our website in the “Investor Relations—Corporate Governance” section are charters for the company’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee as well as our Corporate Governance Guidelines and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics governing our directors, officers and employees. Information on, or accessible through, our website is not a part of, and is not incorporated into, this report.

Item 1A.

Risk Factors

Risks relating to our management, business and company include, specifically:

Risks Related to the Financial Markets

We do not know what impact the Dodd-Frank Act will have on our business.

On July 21, 2010, the United States enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or “Act”). The Dodd-Frank Act affects almost every aspect of the U.S. financial services industry, including certain aspects of the markets in which we operate. The Act imposes new regulations on us and how we conduct our business. For example, the Act will impose additional disclosure requirements for public companies and generally require issuers or originators of asset-backed securities to retain at least five percent of the credit risk associated with the securitized assets. In addition, the Act will require us to register as an investment advisor with the SEC, which will increase our regulatory compliance costs and subject us to new restrictions as well as penalties for any future non-compliance with these regulations. Importantly, many key aspects of the changes imposed by the Act will be established by various regulatory bodies and other groups over the next several years. As a result, we do not know how significantly the Act will affect us. It is possible that the Act could, among other things, increase our costs of operating as a public company, impose restrictions on our ability to securitize assets and reduce our investment returns on securitized assets.

We do not know what impact the U.S. government’s programs to attempt to stabilize the economy and the financial markets will have on our business. The government’s current efforts to modify terms of outstanding loans negatively affects our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In recent years, the U.S. government has taken a number of steps to attempt to strengthen the global financial markets and U.S. economy, including direct government investments in, and guarantees of, troubled financial institutions as well as government-sponsored programs such as the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility program (TALF) and the Public Private Investment Partnership Program (PPIP). The U.S. government is also currently evaluating or implementing an array of other measures and programs that purport to help improve U.S. financial and market conditions. While conditions appear to have improved relative to the depths of the global financial crisis, it is not clear whether this improvement is real or will last for a significant period of time. Moreover, it is not clear what impact the government’s future plans to improve the global economy and financial markets will have on our business. To date, we have not benefited in a direct, material way from any government programs, and we may not derive any meaningful benefit from these programs in the future. Moreover, if any of our competitors are able to benefit from one or more of these initiatives, they may gain a significant competitive advantage over us.

In addition, the U.S. government has enacted legislation that enables government agencies to modify the terms of a significant number of residential and other loans to provide relief to borrowers without the applicable investor’s consent. These modifications allow for outstanding principal to be deferred, interest rates to be reduced, the length of the loan to be extended or other terms to be changed in ways that can permanently eliminate the cash flow (principal and interest) associated with a portion of the loan. These modifications are currently reducing, or in the future may reduce, the value of a number of our mortgage-backed securities and other investments. As a result, such loan modifications are negatively affecting our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, certain market participants propose reducing the amount of paperwork required by a borrower to modify their loan, which could increase the likelihood of fraudulent modifications and materially harm the U.S. mortgage market and investors that have exposure to this market.

Risks Relating to Our Management

We are dependent on our manager and may not find a suitable replacement if our manager terminates the management agreement.

We have no employees. Our officers and other individuals who perform services for us are employees of our manager. We are completely reliant on our manager, which has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and strategies, to conduct our business. We are subject to the risk that our manager will terminate the management agreement and that we will not be able to find a suitable replacement for our manager in a timely manner, at a reasonable cost or at all. Furthermore, we are dependent on the services of certain key employees of our manager whose compensation is partially or entirely dependent upon the amount of incentive or management compensation earned by our manager and whose continued service is not guaranteed and the loss of such services could adversely affect our operations.

There are conflicts of interest in our relationship with our manager.

Our chairman serves as an officer of our manager. Our management agreement with our manager was not negotiated at arm’s-length and its terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

There are conflicts of interest inherent in our relationship with our manager insofar as our manager and its affiliates — including investment funds, private investment funds, or businesses managed by our manager — invest in real estate securities, real estate related loans and operating real estate and whose investment objectives overlap with our investment objectives. Certain investments appropriate for Newcastle may also be appropriate for one or more of these other investment vehicles. Members of our board of directors and employees of our manager who are our officers may serve as officers and/or directors of these other entities. In addition, our manager or its affiliates may have investments in and/or earn fees from such other investment vehicles which are larger than their economic interests in Newcastle and which may therefore create an incentive to allocate investments to such other investment vehicles. Our manager or its affiliates may determine, in their discretion, to make a particular investment through another investment vehicle rather than through Newcastle and have no obligation to offer to Newcastle the opportunity to participate in any particular investment opportunity. Accordingly, it is possible that we may not be given the opportunity to participate at all in certain investments made by our affiliates that meet our investment objectives.

Our management agreement with our manager generally does not limit or restrict our manager or its affiliates from engaging in any business or managing other pooled investment vehicles that invest in investments that meet our investment objectives, except that under our management agreement neither our manager nor any entity controlled by or under common control with our manager is permitted to raise or sponsor any new pooled investment vehicle whose investment policies, guidelines or plan targets as its primary investment category investment in United States dollar-denominated credit sensitive real estate related securities reflecting primarily United States loans or assets. Our manager intends to engage in additional real estate related management and investment opportunities in the future which may compete with us for investments.

The ability of our manager and its officers and employees to engage in other business activities, subject to the terms of our management agreement with our manager, may reduce the time our manager, its officers or other employees spend managing Newcastle. In addition, we may engage in material transactions with our manager or another entity managed by our manager or one of its affiliates, including certain financing arrangements and co-investments which present an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest, subject to our investment guidelines. It is possible that actual, potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to investor dissatisfaction, litigation or regulatory enforcement actions. Appropriately dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and difficult, and our reputation could be damaged if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with one or more potential, actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Regulatory scrutiny of, or litigation in connection with, conflicts of interest could have a material adverse effect on our reputation which could materially adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including causing an inability to raise additional funds, a reluctance of counterparties to do business with us, a decrease in the prices of our common and preferred securities and a resulting increased risk of litigation and regulatory enforcement actions.

The management compensation structure that we have agreed to with our manager may incentivize our manager to invest in high risk investments. In addition to its management fee, our manager is entitled to receive incentive compensation based in part upon our achievement of targeted levels of funds from operations (as defined in the management agreement). In evaluating investments and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn incentive compensation based on funds from operations may lead our manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of funds from operations at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, in order to achieve higher incentive compensation, particularly in light of the fact that our manager has not received any incentive compensation and likely will not receive any incentive compensation in the future unless it meaningfully increases Newcastle’s investment returns. Investments with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative than lower-yielding investments. Moreover, because our manager receives compensation in the form of options in connection with the completion of our common equity offerings, our manager may be incentivized to cause us to issue additional common stock, which could be dilutive to existing shareholders.

It would be difficult and costly to terminate our management agreement with our manager.

Termination of the management agreement with our manager would be difficult and costly. The management agreement may only be terminated annually upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors, or by a vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock, based upon (1) unsatisfactory performance by our manager that is materially detrimental to us or (2) a determination that the management fee payable to our manager is not fair, subject to our manager’s right to prevent such a compensation termination by accepting a mutually acceptable reduction of fees. Our manager will be provided 60 days’ prior notice of any termination and will be paid a termination fee equal to the amount of the management fee earned by the manager during the twelve-month period preceding such termination. In addition, following any termination of the management agreement, the manager may require us to purchase its right to receive incentive compensation at a price determined as if our assets were sold for their fair market value (as determined by an appraisal, taking into account, among other things, the expected future value of the underlying investments) or otherwise we may continue to pay the incentive compensation to our manager. These provisions may

increase the effective cost to us of terminating the management agreement, thereby adversely affecting our ability to terminate our manager without cause.

Our directors have approved very broad investment guidelines for our manager and do not approve each investment decision made by our manager.

Our manager is authorized to follow very broad investment guidelines. Consequently, our manager has great latitude in determining the types of assets it may decide are proper investments for us. Our directors periodically review our investment guidelines and our investment portfolio. However, our board does not review or pre-approve each proposed investment or our related financing arrangements. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, the directors rely primarily on information provided to them by our manager. Furthermore, transactions entered into by our manager may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by the directors even if the transactions contravene the terms of the management agreement.

We may change our investment strategy without stockholder consent, which may result in our making investments that entail more risk than our current investments.

Our investment strategy may evolve, in light of existing market conditions and investment opportunities, and this evolution may involve additional risks depending upon the nature of such assets and our ability to finance such assets on a short or long term basis. Investment opportunities that present unattractive risk-return profiles relative to other available investment opportunities under particular market conditions may become relatively attractive under changed market conditions and changes in market conditions may therefore result in changes in the investments we target. Decisions to make investments in new asset categories present risks that may be difficult for us to adequately assess and could therefore reduce our ability to pay dividends on both our common stock and preferred stock or have adverse effects on our liquidity or financial condition. A change in our investment strategy may also increase our exposure to interest rate, foreign currency, real estate market or credit market fluctuations. In addition, a change in our investment strategy may increase our use of non-match-funded financing, increase the guarantee obligations we agree to incur or increase the number of transactions we enter into with affiliates. Our failure to accurately assess the risks inherent in new asset categories or the financing risks associated with such assets could adversely affect our results of operations and our financial condition.

Risks Relating to Our Business

Market conditions could negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The market in which we operate is affected by a number of factors that are largely beyond our control but can nonetheless have a potentially significant, negative impact on us. These factors include, among other things:

•

Interest rates and credit spreads;

•

The availability of credit, including the price, terms and conditions under which it can be obtained;

•

The quality, pricing and availability of suitable investments and credit losses with respect to our investments;

•

The ability to obtain accurate market-based valuations;

•

Loan values relative to the value of the underlying real estate assets;

•

Default rates on both commercial and residential mortgages and the amount of the related losses;

•

The actual and perceived state of the real estate markets, market for dividend-paying stocks and public capital markets generally;

•

Unemployment rates; and

•

The attractiveness of other types of investments relative to investments in real estate or REITs generally.

Changes in these factors are difficult to predict, and a change in one factor can affect other factors. For example, during 2007, increased default rates in the subprime mortgage market played a role in causing credit spreads to widen, reducing availability of credit on favorable terms, reducing liquidity and price transparency of real estate related assets, resulting in difficulty in obtaining accurate mark-to-market valuations, and causing a negative perception of the state of the real estate markets and of REITs generally. These conditions worsened during 2008, and intensified meaningfully during the fourth quarter of 2008, as a result of the global credit and liquidity crisis, resulting in extraordinarily challenging market conditions.

A prolonged economic slowdown, a lengthy or severe recession, or declining real estate values could harm our operations.

We believe the risks associated with our business are more severe during periods similar to those we recently experienced in which an economic slowdown or recession is accompanied by declining real estate values. Declining real estate values generally reduce the level of new mortgage loan originations, since borrowers often use increases in the value of their

existing properties to support the purchase of, or investment in, additional properties. Borrowers may also be less able to pay principal and interest on our loans, and the loans underlying our securities, if the real estate economy weakens. Further, declining real estate values significantly increase the likelihood that we will incur losses on our loans and securities in the event of default because the value of our collateral may be insufficient to cover our basis. Any sustained period of increased payment delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect both our net interest income from loans and securities in our portfolio as well as our ability to originate, sell and securitize loans, which would significantly harm our revenues, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, business prospects and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders. For more information on the impact of market conditions on our business and results of operations see Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Market Considerations.”

The use of CDO financings with coverage tests may have a negative impact on our operating results and cash flows.

We have retained, and may in the future retain or repurchase, subordinate classes of bonds issued by certain of our subsidiaries in our CDO financings. Each of our CDO financings contains tests that measure the amount of over collateralization and excess interest in the transaction. Failure to satisfy these tests would generally result in principal and/or interest cash flow that would otherwise be distributed to more junior classes of securities (including those held by Newcastle) to be redirected to pay down the most senior class of securities outstanding until the tests are satisfied. As a result, failure to satisfy the coverage tests could adversely affect our operating results and cash flows by temporarily or permanently directing funds that would otherwise come to us to holders of the senior classes of bonds. In addition, the redirected funds would be used to pay down financing, which currently bears an attractive rate, thereby reducing our future earnings from the affected CDO. The ratings assigned to the assets in each CDO affect the results of the tests governing whether a CDO can distribute cash to the various classes of securities in the CDO. As a result, ratings downgrades of the assets in a CDO can result in a CDO failing its tests and thereby cause us not to receive cash flows from the affected CDO. We note that we have approximately $266.2 million of assets in our consolidated CDOs as of December 2010 or February 2011, as appropriate, that are under negative watch for possible downgrade by at least one of the rating agencies. One or more of the rating agencies could downgrade some or all of these assets at any time, and any such downgrade could negatively affect – and possibly materially affect – our future cash flows. As of the December 2010 remittance date for CDOs IV and V and as of the February 2011 remittance date for CDO VI, these CDOs were not in compliance with their applicable over collateralization tests and, consequently, we are not receiving cash flows from these CDOs (other than senior management fees and interest distributions from senior classes of bonds we own). Based upon our current calculations, we expect these CDOs to remain out of compliance for the foreseeable future. Moreover, given current market conditions, it is possible that all of our CDOs could be out of compliance with their over collateralization tests as of one or more measurement dates within the next twelve months.

Our ability to rebalance will depend upon the availability of suitable securities, market prices, whether the reinvestment period of the applicable CDO has ended, and other factors that are beyond our control. For example, in prior periods, we were able to repurchase notes issued by the CDOs and subsequently cancel those notes in accordance with the terms of the relevant governing documentation. These cancellations assisted the applicable CDO in satisfying its overcollateralization test as of the next testing date and thereby enabled the cash flow from that CDO to be distributed to the junior classes of securities (including those held by Newcastle). The trustee of all of our CDOs has informed us that, if we wish to cancel CDO debt in the future, they will require us to obtain the approval of the noteholders of the applicable CDO. If we are unable to obtain the requisite noteholder consent, we will be unable to use CDO debt cancellations as a tool to help CDOs satisfy their overcollateralization tests and thereby maintain the flow of cash from that CDO to Newcastle. As a result, holders of our common shares and preferred shares should not expect that we will be able to cancel any of our CDO obligations in the future. While there are other permissible methods to rebalance or otherwise correct CDO test failures, such methods may be extremely difficult to employ given current market conditions, and we cannot assure you that we will be successful in our rebalancing efforts. If the liabilities of our CDOs are downgraded by Moody’s to certain predetermined levels, our discretion to rebalance the applicable CDO portfolios may be negatively impacted. Moreover, if we bring these coverage tests into compliance, we cannot assure you that they will not fall out of compliance in the future or that we will be able to correct any noncompliance.

Failure of the over collateralization tests can also cause a “phantom income” issue if cash that constitutes income is diverted to pay down debt instead of distributed to us. For more information regarding noncompliance with the terms of certain of our CDO financings in the near future, please see Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Liquidity and Capital Resources” and “–Debt Obligations.”

We may experience an event of default or the removal of us as collateral manager under one or more of our CDOs, which would negatively affect us in a number of ways.

The documentation governing our CDOs specify certain events of default, which, if they occur, would negatively affect us. Events of default include, among other things, failure to pay interest on senior classes of securities within the CDO,

breaches of covenants, representations or warranties, bankruptcy, and failure to satisfy specific over collateralization and interest coverage tests. If an event of default occurs under any of our CDOs, it would negatively affect our cash flows, business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, we can be removed as manager of a CDO if certain events occur, including the failure to satisfy specific over collateralization and interest coverage tests, failure to satisfy certain “key man” requirements or an event of default occurring for the failure to pay interest on the related senior classes of securities of the CDO. If we are removed as collateral manager, we would no longer receive management fees from — and no longer be able to manage the assets of — the applicable CDO, which would negatively affect our cash flows, business, results of operations and financial condition. We note that on November 4, 2009, CDO VII failed additional over collateralization tests. The consequences of failing these tests are that an event of default has occurred, and we may be removed as the collateral manager under the documentation governing CDO VII. So long as the event of default continues, we will not be permitted to purchase or sell any collateral in CDO VII. If we are removed as the collateral manager of CDO VII, we would no longer receive the senior management fees from such CDO. As of February 17, 2011, we have not been removed as collateral manager. Based upon our current calculations, we estimate that if we are removed as the collateral manager of CDO VII, the loss of senior management fees would not have a material negative impact on our cash flows, business, results of operations or financial condition. However, given current market conditions, it is possible that events of default may occur in other CDOs, and we could be removed as the collateral manager of those CDOs if certain events of default occur. Moreover, our cash flows, business, results of operations and/or financial condition could be materially and negatively impacted if certain events of default occur.

We have assumed the role of manager of numerous CDOs previously managed by a third party, and we may assume the role of manager of additional CDOs in the future. Each such engagement exposes us to a number of potential risks.

Changes within our industry may result in CDO collateral managers being replaced. In such instances, we may seek to be engaged as the collateral manager of CDOs currently managed by third parties. For example, in February 2011, one of our subsidiaries became the collateral manager of certain CDOs previously managed by C-BASS Investment Management LLC (“C-BASS”).

While being engaged as the collateral manager of such CDOs potentially enables us to grow our business, it also entails a number of risks that could harm our reputation, results of operations and financial condition. For example, we purchased the management rights with respect to the C-BASS CDOs pursuant to a bankruptcy proceeding. As a result, we were not able to conduct extensive due diligence on the CDO assets even though the distressed credit ratings assigned by the rating agencies to many classes of securities issued by the CDOs as of the most recent rating date prior to our becoming the collateral manager of the CDOs. We may willingly or unknowingly assume actual or contingent liabilities for significant expenses, we may become subject to new laws and regulations with which we are not familiar, and we may become subject to increased risk of litigation, regulatory investigation or negative publicity. For example, we determined that it would be prudent to register the subsidiary that became the collateral manager of the C-BASS CDOs as a registered investment advisor, which increases our future regulatory compliance costs. In addition to defending against litigation and complying with regulatory requirements, being engaged as collateral manager may require us to invest other resources for various other reasons, which could detract from our ability to capitalize on future opportunities. Moreover, being engaged as collateral manager may require us to integrate complex technological, accounting and management systems, which may be difficult, expensive and time-consuming and which we may not be successful in integrating into our current systems. In addition to the risk that we face if we are successful in becoming the manager of additional CDOs, we may attempt but fail to become the collateral manager of CDOs in the future, which could harm our reputation and subject us to costly litigation. Finally, if we include the financial performance of the C-BASS CDOs or other CDOs for which we become the collateral manager in our public filings, we are subject to the risk that, particularly during the period immediately after we become the collateral manager, this information may prove to be inaccurate or incomplete. The occurrence of any of these negative integration events could negatively impact our reputation with both regulators and investors, which could, in turn, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny and impair our relationships with the investment community. The occurrence of any of these problems could negatively affect our reputation, financial condition and results of operations.

Our investments have previously been — and in the future may be — subject to significant impairment charges, which adversely affect our results of operations.

We are required to periodically evaluate our investments for impairment indicators. The value of an investment is impaired when our analysis indicates that, with respect to a loan, it is probable that we will not be able to collect the full amount we intended to collect from the loan or, with respect to a security, it is probable that the value of security is other than temporarily impaired. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based on a variety of factors depending upon the nature of the investment and the manner in which the income related to such investment calculated for purposes of our financial statements. If we determine that an impairment has occurred, we are required to make an

adjustment to the net carrying value of the investment, which could adversely affect our results of operations in the applicable period and thereby adversely affect our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

As has been widely publicized, the recent market conditions have resulted in a number of financial institutions recording an unprecedented amount of impairment charges, and we were also affected by these conditions. These challenging conditions have reduced the market trading activity for many real estate securities, resulting in less liquid markets for those securities. These lower valuations have affected us by, among other things, decreasing our net book value and contributing to our decision to record impairment charges.

The lenders under our repurchase agreements may elect not to extend financing to us, which could quickly and seriously impair our liquidity.

We have historically financed a meaningful portion of our investments not held in CDOs with repurchase agreements, which are short-term financing arrangements, and we may enter into additional repurchase agreements in the future. Under the terms of these agreements, we sell a security to a counterparty for a specified price and concurrently agree to repurchase the same security from our counterparty at a later date for a higher specified price. During the term of the repurchase agreement – generally 30 days – the counterparty makes funds available to us and holds the security as collateral. Our counterparties can also require us to post additional margin as collateral at any time during the term of the agreement. When the term of a repurchase agreement ends, we are required to repurchase the security for the specified repurchase price, with the difference between the sale and repurchase prices serving as the equivalent of paying interest to the counterparty in return for extending financing to us. If we want to continue to finance the security with a repurchase agreement, we ask the counterparty to extend – or “roll” – the repurchase agreement for another term.

Our counterparties are not required to roll our repurchase agreements upon the expiration of the stated terms, which subjects us to a number of risks. As we have experienced recently and may experience in the future, counterparties electing to roll our repurchase agreements may charge higher spread and impose more onerous terms upon us, including the requirement that we post additional margin as collateral. More significantly, if a repurchase agreement counterparty elects not to extend our financing, we would be required to pay the counterparty the full repurchase price on the maturity date and find an alternate source of financing. Alternate sources of financing may be more expensive, contain more onerous terms or simply may not be available. If we were unable to pay the repurchase price for any security financed with a repurchase agreement, the counterparty has the right to sell the underlying security being held as collateral and require us to compensate them for any shortfall between the value of our obligation to the counterparty and the amount for which the collateral was sold (which may be sold at a significantly discounted price). As of December 31, 2010, we had an $18.7 million outstanding balance on a repurchase agreement financing our purchase of certain CDO VI notes. Moreover, all of our repurchase agreement obligations are with one counterparty. If this counterparty elected not to roll this repurchase agreement, we may not be able to find a replacement counterparty in a timely manner.

Our determination of how much leverage to apply to our investments may adversely affect our return on our investments and may reduce cash available for distribution.

We leverage our portfolio through borrowings, generally through the use of credit facilities, warehouse facilities, repurchase agreements, mortgage loans on real estate, securitizations, including the issuance of CDOs, private or public offerings of debt by subsidiaries, loans to entities in which we hold, directly or indirectly, interests in pools of properties or loans, and other borrowings. Our investment policies do not limit the amount of leverage we may incur with respect to any specific asset or pool of assets, subject to an overall limit on our use of leverage to 90% (as defined in our governing documents) of the value of our assets on an aggregate basis. As a result of the continued challenging credit and liquidity conditions, the return we are able to earn on our investments and cash available for distribution to our stockholders has been significantly reduced due to changes in market conditions causing the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income that can be derived from our assets.

We have limited liquidity. We may become party to agreements that require cash payments at periodic intervals. Failure to make such required payments may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are currently party to repurchase agreements that may require us to post additional margin as collateral at any time during the term of the agreement, based on the value of the collateral. We may become party to additional financing agreements that require us to make cash payments at periodic intervals or upon the occurrence of certain events. Events could occur or circumstances could arise, which we may not be able to foresee, that may cause us to be unable to make any such cash payments when they become due. Failure to make the payments required under our financing documents would give the lenders the right to require us to repay all amounts owed to them under the applicable financing immediately.

We are subject to counterparty default and concentration risks.

In the ordinary course of our business, we enter into various types of financing arrangements with counterparties. Currently, the majority of our financing arrangements take the form of repurchase agreements, securitization vehicles, loans, hedge contracts, swaps and other derivative and non-derivative contracts. The terms of these contracts are often customized and complex, and many of these arrangements occur in markets or relate to products that are not subject to regulatory oversight.

We are subject to the risk that the counterparty to one or more of these contracts defaults, either voluntarily or involuntarily, on its performance under the contract. Any such default may occur rapidly and without notice to us. Moreover, if a counterparty defaults, we may be unable to take action to cover our exposure, either because we lack the contractual ability or because market conditions make it difficult to take effective action. This inability could occur in times of market stress consistent with the conditions we are currently experiencing, which are precisely the times when defaults may be most likely to occur.

In addition, our risk-management processes may not accurately anticipate the impact of market stress or counterparty financial condition, and as a result, we may not take sufficient action to reduce our risks effectively. Although we monitor our credit exposures, default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect, foresee or evaluate. In addition, concerns about, or a default by, one large participant could lead to significant liquidity problems for other participants, which may in turn expose us to significant losses.

In the event of a counterparty default, particularly a default by a major investment bank, we could incur material losses rapidly, and the resulting market impact of a major counterparty default could seriously harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. In the event that one of our counterparties becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy, our ability to eventually recover any losses suffered as a result of that counterparty’s default may be limited by the liquidity of the counterparty or the applicable legal regime governing the bankruptcy proceeding.

In addition, with respect to our CDOs, certain of our derivative counterparties are required to maintain certain ratings to avoid having to post collateral or transfer the derivative to another counterparty. If the counterparty was downgraded below these levels they may not be able to satisfy their obligations under the derivative, which could have a material negative effect on the applicable CDO.

The counterparty risks that we face have increased in complexity and magnitude as a result of the recent insolvency of a number of major financial institutions (such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and AIG). For example, the consolidation and elimination of counterparties has increased our concentration of counterparty risk and decreased the universe of potential counterparties. We are currently party to repurchase agreements with one counterparty. If this counterparty elected not to roll this repurchase agreement, we may not be able to find a replacement counterparty. In addition, counterparties have generally tightened their underwriting standards and increased their margin requirements for financing, which has negatively impacted us in several ways, including, decreasing the number of counterparties willing to provide financing to us, decreasing the overall amount of leverage available to us, and increasing the costs of borrowing.

We are not restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of our transactions with one counterparty. Any loss suffered by us as a result of a counterparty defaulting, refusing to conduct business with us or imposing more onerous terms on us would also negatively affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Although we seek to match fund our investments to limit refinance risk and lock in net spreads, we do not currently match fund our investments not held in our CDOs, which increases the risks related to refinancing these investments.

A key to our investment strategy is to finance our investments using match funded financing structures, which match assets and liabilities with respect to maturities and interest rates. This strategy limits our refinance risk, including the risk of being able to refinance an investment on favorable terms or at all. We generally use match funded financing structures, such as CDOs, to finance our investments in real estate securities and loans. However, our manager may elect for us to bear a level of refinancing risk on a short term or longer term basis, such as is the case with investments financed with repurchase agreements, when, based on its analysis, our manager determines that bearing such risk is deemed advisable or unavoidable (this is generally the case with respect to the residential mortgage loans and FNMA/FHLMC in which we invest). In addition, we may be unable, as a result of conditions in the credit markets, to match fund investments. For example, non-recourse term financing not subject to margin requirements was generally not available or economical for the past two years and is currently still challenging to obtain, which impairs our ability to match fund our investments. The decision not, or the inability, to match fund certain investments exposes us to additional refinancing risks that may not apply to our other investments.

Furthermore, we anticipate that, in most cases, for any period during which our floating rate assets are not match funded with respect to maturity, the income from such assets may respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Because of this dynamic, interest income from such investments may rise more slowly than the related interest expense, with a consequent decrease in our net income. Interest rate fluctuations resulting in our interest expense exceeding interest income would result in operating losses for us from these investments.

Accordingly, if we do not or are unable to match fund our investments with respect to maturities and interest rates, we will be exposed to the risk that we may not be able to finance or refinance our investments on economically favorable terms or may have to liquidate assets at a loss.

We may not be able to finance our investments on a long term basis on attractive terms, including by means of securitization, which may require us to seek more costly financing for our investments or to liquidate assets.

When we acquire securities and loans that we finance on a short term basis with a view to securitization or other long term financing, we bear the risk of being unable to securitize the assets or otherwise finance them on a long term basis at attractive prices or in a timely matter, or at all. If it is not possible or economical for us to securitize or otherwise finance such assets on a long term basis, we may be unable to pay down our short term credit facilities, or be required to liquidate the assets at a loss in order to do so. For example, our ability to finance investments with securitizations or other long-term non-recourse financing not subject to margin requirements has been impaired since 2007 as a result of recent market conditions. These conditions make it highly likely that we will have to use less efficient forms of financing for any new investments, which will likely require a larger portion of our cash flows to be put toward making the initial investment and thereby reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders and funds available for operations and investments, and which will also likely require us to assume higher levels of risk when financing our investments.

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

Commercial mortgage loans are secured by multifamily or commercial property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of such property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Net operating income of an income-producing property can be affected by, among other things: tenant mix, success of tenant businesses, property management decisions, property location and condition, competition from comparable types of properties, changes in laws that increase operating expense or limit rents that may be charged, any need to address environmental contamination at the property, the occurrence of any uninsured casualty at the property, changes in national, regional or local economic conditions and/or specific industry segments, declines in regional or local real estate values, declines in regional or local rental or occupancy rates, increases in interest rates, changes in the availability of credit on favorable terms, real estate tax rates and other operating expenses, changes in governmental rules, regulations and fiscal policies, including environmental legislation, acts of God, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances.

Residential mortgage loans, manufactured housing loans and subprime mortgage loans are secured by single-family residential property and are also subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property is dependent upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors may impair borrowers’ abilities to repay their loans, including, among other things, changes in the borrower’s employment status, changes in national, regional or local economic conditions, changes in interest rates or the availability of credit on favorable terms, changes in regional or local real estate values, changes in regional or local rental rates and changes in real estate taxes.

In the event of any default under a loan held directly by us, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the outstanding principal and accrued but unpaid interest of the loan, which could adversely affect our cash flow from operations. Foreclosure of a loan, particularly a commercial loan, can be an expensive and lengthy process, which would negatively affect our anticipated return on the foreclosed loan.

Mortgage and asset backed securities are bonds or notes backed by loans and/or other financial assets and include commercial mortgage back securities (CMBS), FNMA/FHLMC securities, and real estate related asset backed securities (ABS). The ability of a borrower to repay these loans or other financial assets is dependent upon the income or assets of these borrowers. If a borrower has insufficient income or assets to repay these loans, it will default on its loan. While we intend to focus on real estate related asset backed securities, there can be no assurance that we will not invest in other types of asset backed securities.

Our investments in mortgage and asset backed securities will be adversely affected by defaults under the loans underlying such securities. To the extent losses are realized on the loans underlying the securities in which we invest, the Company may not recover the amount invested in, or, in extreme cases, any of our investment in, such securities.

We have recently experienced increased default rates on our commercial and residential mortgage loans.

Our investments in debt securities are subject to specific risks relating to the particular issuer of the securities and to the general risks of investing in subordinated real estate securities.

Our investments in debt securities involve special risks. REITs generally are required to invest substantially in real estate or real estate-related assets and are subject to the inherent risks associated with real estate-related investments discussed in this report. Our investments in debt are subject to the risks described above with respect to mortgage loans and MBS and similar risks, including:

•

risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss in the event thereof;

•

the dependence upon the successful operation of and net income from real property;

•

risks generally incident to interests in real property; and

•

risks that may be presented by the type and use of a particular property.

Debt securities may be unsecured and may also be subordinated to other obligations of the issuer. We may also invest in debt securities that are rated below investment grade. As a result, investments in debt securities are also subject to risks of:

•

limited liquidity in the secondary trading market;

•

substantial market price volatility resulting from changes in prevailing interest rates or credit spreads;

•

subordination to the prior claims of senior lenders to the issuer;

•

the possibility that earnings of the debt security issuer may be insufficient to meet its debt service; and

•

the declining creditworthiness and potential for insolvency of the issuer of such debt securities during periods of rising interest rates and economic downturn.

These risks may adversely affect the value of outstanding debt securities and the ability of the issuers thereof to repay principal and interest.

We are subject to significant competition and we may not compete successfully.

We are subject to significant competition in seeking investments. We compete with other companies, including other REITs, insurance companies and other investors, including funds and companies affiliated with our manager. Some of our competitors have greater resources than we possess or have greater access to capital or various types of financing structures than are available to us, and we may not be able to compete successfully for investments or provide attractive investment returns relative to our competitors. These competitors may be willing to accept lower return on their investments or to compromise underwriting standards and, as a result, our origination volume and profit margins could be adversely affected. Furthermore, competition for investments of the type to be made by us may lead to the returns available from such investments decreasing, which may further limit our ability to generate our desired returns. We cannot assure you that other companies will not be formed that compete with us for investments or otherwise pursue investment strategies similar to ours or that we will be able to complete successfully against any such companies.

Following the closing of a CDO financing when we have locked in the liability costs for a CDO during the reinvestment period, the rate at which we are able to acquire eligible investments and changes in market conditions may adversely affect our anticipated returns.

During the reinvestment period, we must invest the restricted cash available for reinvestments in our CDOs. Until we are able to acquire sufficient assets, our returns will reflect income earned on uninvested cash and, having locked in the cost of liabilities for the particular CDO, the particular CDO’s returns will be at risk of declining to the extent that yields on the assets to be acquired decline. In general, our ability to acquire appropriate investments depends upon the supply in the market of investments we deem suitable, and changes in various economic factors may affect our determination of what constitutes a suitable investment.

Our returns will be adversely affected when investments held in CDOs are prepaid or sold subsequent to the reinvestment period.

Real estate securities and loans are subject to prepayment risk. In addition, we may sell, and realize gains (or losses) on, investments. To the extent such assets were held in CDOs subsequent to the end of the reinvestment period, the proceeds

are fully utilized to pay down the related CDOs debt. This causes the leverage on the CDO to decrease, thereby lowering our returns on equity.

Our investments in senior unsecured REIT securities are subject to specific risks relating to the particular REIT issuer and to the general risks of investing in subordinated real estate securities, which may result in losses to us.

Our investments in REIT securities involve special risks relating to the particular REIT issuer of the securities, including the financial condition and business outlook of the issuer. REITs generally are required to substantially invest in operating real estate or real estate related assets and are subject to the inherent risks associated with real estate related investments discussed in this report.

Our investments in REIT securities are also subject to the risks described above with respect to mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities and similar risks, including (i) risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss in the event thereof, (ii) the dependence upon the successful operation of and net income from real property, (iii) risks generally incident to interests in real property, and (iv) risks that may be presented by the type and use of a particular commercial property.

REIT securities are generally unsecured and may also be subordinated to other obligations of the issuer. We may also invest in REIT securities that are rated below investment grade. As a result, investments in REIT securities are also subject to risks of: (i) limited liquidity in the secondary trading market, (ii) substantial market price volatility resulting from changes in prevailing interest rates, (iii) subordination to the prior claims of banks and other senior lenders to the issuer, (iv) the operation of mandatory sinking fund or call/redemption provisions during periods of declining interest rates that could cause the issuer to reinvest premature redemption proceeds in lower yielding assets, (v) the possibility that earnings of the REIT issuer may be insufficient to meet its debt service and dividend obligations and (vi) the declining creditworthiness and potential for insolvency of the issuer of such REIT securities during periods of rising interest rates and economic downturn. These risks may adversely affect the value of outstanding REIT securities and the ability of the issuers thereof to repay principal and interest or make dividend payments.

The real estate related loans and other direct and indirect interests in pools of real estate properties or other loans that we invest in may be subject to additional risks relating to the structure and terms of these transactions, which may result in losses to us.

We invest in real estate related loans and other direct and indirect interests in pools of real estate properties or loans such as mezzanine loans and “B Note” mortgage loans. We invest in mezzanine loans that take the form of subordinated loans secured by second mortgages on the underlying real property or other business assets or revenue streams or loans secured by a pledge of the ownership interests of the entity owning real property or other business assets or revenue streams (or the ownership interest of the parent of such entity). These types of investments involve a higher degree of risk than long term senior lending secured by business assets or income producing real property because the investment may become unsecured as a result of foreclosure by a senior lender. In the event of a bankruptcy of the entity providing the pledge of its ownership interests as security, we may not have full recourse to the assets of such entity, or the assets of the entity may not be sufficient to repay our mezzanine loan. If a borrower defaults on our mezzanine loan or debt senior to our loan, or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, our mezzanine loan will be satisfied only after the senior debt is repaid in full. As a result, we may not recover some or all of our investment. In addition, mezzanine loans may have higher loan to value ratios than conventional mortgage loans, resulting in less equity in the property and increasing the risk of loss of principal.

We also invest in mortgage loans (“B Notes”) that while secured by a first mortgage on a single large commercial property or group of related properties are subordinated to an “A Note” secured by the same first mortgage on the same collateral. As a result, if an issuer defaults, there may not be sufficient funds remaining for B Note holders. B Notes reflect similar credit risks to comparably rated commercial mortgage backed securities. In addition, we invest, directly or indirectly, in pools of real estate properties or loans. However, since each transaction is privately negotiated, these investments can vary in their structural characteristics and risks. For example, the rights of holders of B Notes to control the process following a borrower default may vary from transaction to transaction, while investments in pools of real estate properties or loans may be subject to varying contractual arrangements with third party co-investors in such pools. Further, B Notes typically are secured by a single property, and so reflect the risks associated with significant concentration. These investments also are less liquid than commercial mortgage backed securities.

Investment in non-investment grade loans may involve increased risk of loss.

We acquire and may continue to acquire in the future certain loans that do not conform to conventional loan criteria applied by traditional lenders and are not rated or are rated as non-investment grade (for example, for investments rated by Moody’s Investors Service, ratings lower than Baa3, and for Standard & Poor’s, BBB- or below). The non-investment grade ratings for these loans typically result from the overall leverage of the loans, the lack of a strong operating history for

the properties underlying the loans, the borrowers’ credit history, the properties’ underlying cash flow or other factors. As a result, these loans have a higher risk of default and loss than conventional loans. Any loss we incur may reduce distributions to our stockholders. There are no limits on the percentage of unrated or non-investment grade assets we may hold in our portfolio.

Insurance on real estate in which we have interests (including the real estate serving as collateral for our real estate securities and loans) may not cover all losses.

There are certain types of losses, generally of a catastrophic nature, such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, terrorism or acts of war, that may be uninsurable or not economically insurable. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations, and other factors, including terrorism or acts of war, also might make the insurance proceeds insufficient to repair or replace a property if it is damaged or destroyed. Under such circumstances, the insurance proceeds received might not be adequate to restore our economic position with respect to the affected real property. As a result of the events of September 11, 2001, insurance companies are limiting and/or excluding coverage for acts of terrorism in insurance policies. As a result, we may suffer losses from acts of terrorism that are not covered by insurance.

In addition, the mortgage loans that are secured by certain of the properties in which we have interests contain customary covenants, including covenants that require property insurance to be maintained in an amount equal to the replacement cost of the properties. There can be no assurance that the lenders under these mortgage loans will not take the position that exclusions from coverage for losses due to terrorist acts is a breach of a covenant which, if uncured, could allow the lenders to declare an event of default and accelerate repayment of the mortgage loans.

Many of our investments are illiquid, and this lack of liquidity could significantly impede our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions or to realize the value at which such investments are carried if we are required to dispose of them.

The real estate properties that we own and operate and our other direct and indirect investments in real estate and real estate related assets are generally illiquid. In addition, the real estate securities that we purchase in connection with privately negotiated transactions are not registered under the relevant securities laws, resulting in a prohibition against their transfer, sale, pledge or other disposition except in a transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of, or is otherwise in accordance with, those laws. In addition, there are no established trading markets for a majority of our investments. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be limited.

Our securities have historically been valued based primarily on third party quotations, which are subject to significant variability based on the liquidity and price transparency created by market trading activity. The ongoing dislocation in the trading markets has continued to reduce the trading for many real estate securities, resulting in less transparent prices for those securities. Consequently, it is currently more difficult for us to sell many of our assets now that it has been historically because, if we were to sell such assets, we will likely not have access to readily ascertainable market prices when establishing valuations of them. Moreover, currently there is a relatively low market demand for the vast majority of the types of assets that we hold, which may make it extremely difficult to sell assets. If we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our illiquid investments quickly, we may realize significantly less than the amount at which we have previously valued these investments.

Interest rate fluctuations and shifts in the yield curve may cause losses.

Our primary interest rate exposures relate to our real estate securities, loans, floating rate debt obligations and interest rate swaps. Changes in interest rates, including changes in expected interest rates or “yield curves,” affect our business in a number of ways. Changes in the general level of interest rates can affect our net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income earned on our interest-earning assets and the interest expense incurred in connection with our interest-bearing liabilities and hedges. Changes in the level of interest rates also can affect, among other things, our ability to acquire real estate securities and loans at attractive prices, the value of our real estate securities, loans and derivatives and our ability to realize gains from the sale of such assets. In the past, we have utilized hedging transactions to protect our positions from interest rate fluctuations, but as a result of current market conditions we face significant obstacles to entering into new hedging transactions. As a result, we may not be able to protect new investments from interest rate fluctuations to the same degree as in the past, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

In the event of a significant rising interest rate environment and/or economic downturn, loan and collateral defaults may increase and result in credit losses that would adversely affect our liquidity and operating results. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political conditions, and other factors beyond our control.

Our ability to execute our business strategy, particularly the growth of our investment portfolio, depends to a significant degree on our ability to obtain additional capital. Our financing strategy is dependent on our ability to place the match

funded debt we use to finance our investments at rates that provide a positive net spread. If spreads for such liabilities widen or if demand for such liabilities ceases to exist, then our ability to execute future financings will be severely restricted.

Interest rate changes may also impact our net book value as our real estate securities, real estate related loans and hedge derivatives are marked to market each quarter. Debt obligations are not marked to market. Generally, as interest rates increase, the value of our fixed rate securities decreases, which will decrease the book value of our equity.

Furthermore, shifts in the U.S. Treasury yield curve reflecting an increase in interest rates would also affect the yield required on our real estate securities and therefore their value. For example, increasing interest rates would reduce the value of the fixed rate assets we hold at the time because the higher yields required by increased interest rates result in lower market prices on existing fixed rate assets in order to adjust the yield upward to meet the market, and vice versa. This would have similar effects on our real estate securities portfolio and our financial position and operations to a change in interest rates generally.

Our investments in real estate securities and loans are subject to changes in credit spreads, which could adversely affect our ability to realize gains on the sale of such investments.

Real estate securities and loans are subject to changes in credit spreads. Credit spreads measure the yield demanded on securities and loans by the market based on their credit relative to a specific benchmark.

Fixed rate securities and loans are valued based on a market credit spread over the rate payable on fixed rate U.S. Treasuries of like maturity. Floating rate securities and loans are valued based on a market credit spread over LIBOR and are affected similarly by changes in LIBOR spreads. Excessive supply of these securities combined with reduced demand will generally cause the market to require a higher yield on these securities and loans, resulting in the use of a higher, or “wider,” spread over the benchmark rate to value such securities. Under such conditions, the value of our real estate securities and loan portfolios would tend to decline. Conversely, if the spread used to value such securities were to decrease, or “tighten,” the value of our real estate securities portfolio would tend to increase. Such changes in the market value of our real estate securities and loan portfolios may affect our net equity, net income or cash flow directly through their impact on unrealized gains or losses on available for sale securities, and therefore our ability to realize gains on such securities, or indirectly through their impact on our ability to borrow and access capital. During 2008 through the first quarter of 2009, credit spreads widened substantially. This widening of credit spreads caused the net unrealized gains on our securities, loans and derivatives, recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income or retained earnings, and therefore our book value per share, to decrease and resulted in net losses.

In addition, if the value of our loans subject to financing agreements were to decline, it could affect our ability to refinance such loans upon the maturity of the related repurchase agreements. Any credit or spread related losses incurred with respect to our loans would affect us in the same way as similar losses on our real estate securities portfolio as described above.

Any hedging transactions that we enter into may limit our gains or result in losses.

We have used (and may continue to use, when feasible and appropriate) derivatives to hedge a portion of our interest rate exposure, and this approach has certain risks, including the risk that losses on a hedge position will reduce the cash available for distribution to stockholders and that such losses may exceed the amount invested in such instruments. We have adopted a general policy with respect to the use of derivatives, which generally allows us to use derivatives where appropriate, but does not set forth specific policies and procedures or require that we hedge any specific amount of risk. From time to time, we use derivative instruments, including forwards, futures, swaps and options, in our risk management strategy to limit the effects of changes in interest rates on our operations. A hedge may not be effective in eliminating all of the risks inherent in any particular position. Our profitability may be adversely affected during any period as a result of the use of derivatives.

There are limits to the ability of hedging strategy to protect us completely against interest rate risks. When rates change, we expect the gain or loss on derivatives to be offset by a related but inverse change in the value of the items, generally our liabilities, which we hedge. We cannot assure you, however, that our use of derivatives will offset the risks related to changes in interest rates. We cannot assure you that our hedging strategy and the derivatives that we use will adequately offset the risk of interest rate volatility or that our hedging transactions will not result in losses. In addition, our hedging strategy may limit our flexibility by causing us to refrain from taking certain actions that would be potentially profitable but would cause adverse consequences under the terms of our hedging arrangements.

In managing our hedge instruments, we consider the effect of the expected hedging income on the REIT qualification tests that limit the amount of gross income that a REIT may receive from hedging. The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue

Code limit our ability to hedge. We need to carefully monitor, and may have to limit, our hedging strategy to assure that we do not realize hedging income, or hold hedges having a value, in excess of the amounts which would cause us to fail the REIT gross income and asset tests.

Accounting for derivatives under GAAP is extremely complicated. Any failure by us to account for our derivatives properly in accordance with GAAP in our financial statements could adversely affect our earnings.

Under certain conditions, increases in prepayment rates can adversely affect yields on many of our investments.

The value of the majority of assets in which we invest may be affected by prepayment rates on these assets. Prepayment rates are influenced by changes in current interest rates and a variety of economic, geographic and other factors beyond our control, and consequently, such prepayment rates cannot be predicted with certainty. In periods of declining mortgage interest rates, prepayments on loans generally increase. If general interest rates decline as well, the proceeds of such prepayments received during such periods are likely to be reinvested by us in assets yielding less than the yields on the assets that were prepaid. In addition, the market value of floating rate assets may, because of the risk of prepayment, benefit less than fixed rate assets from declining interest rates. Conversely, in periods of rising interest rates, prepayments on loans generally decrease, in which case we would not have the prepayment proceeds available to invest in assets with higher yields. Under certain interest rate and prepayment scenarios we may fail to recoup fully our cost of acquisition of certain investments.

In addition, when market conditions lead us to increase the portion of our CDO investments that are comprised of floating rate securities, the risk of assets inside our CDOs prepaying increases. Since our CDO financing costs are locked in, reinvestment of such prepayment proceeds at lower yields than the initial investments, as a result of changes in the interest rate or credit spread environment, will result in a decrease of the return on our equity and therefore our net income.

Changes in accounting rules could occur at any time and could impact us in significantly negative ways that we are unable to predict or protect against.

As has been widely publicized, the SEC and other regulatory bodies that establish the accounting rules applicable to us have recently proposed or enacted a wide array of changes to current accounting rules. Moreover, these regulators may propose additional changes in the future of which we are not currently aware. Changes to accounting rules that apply to us could significantly impact our business or our reported financial performance in negative ways that we cannot predict or prepare against. We cannot predict whether any changes to current accounting rules will occur or what impact any codified changes will have on our business, results of operation or financial condition.

Environmental compliance costs and liabilities with respect to our real estate in which we have interests may adversely affect our results of operations.

Our operating costs may be affected by our obligation to pay for the cost of complying with existing environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, as well as the cost of complying with future legislation with respect to the assets, or loans secured by assets, with environmental problems that materially impair the value of the assets. Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of real property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances on, under, or in such property. Such laws often impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. In addition, the presence of hazardous or toxic substances, or the failure to remediate properly, may adversely affect the owner’s ability to borrow by using such real property as collateral. Certain environmental laws and common law principles could be used to impose liability for releases of hazardous materials, including asbestos-containing materials, into the environment, and third parties may seek recovery from owners or operators of real properties for personal injury associated with exposure to released asbestos-containing materials or other hazardous materials. Environmental laws may also impose restrictions on the manner in which a property may be used or transferred or in which businesses it may be operated, and these restrictions may require expenditures. In connection with the direct or indirect ownership and operation of properties, we may be potentially liable for any such costs. The cost of defending against claims of liability or remediating contaminated property and the cost of complying with environmental laws could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Relating to Our REIT Status and Other Matters

Our failure to qualify as a REIT would result in higher taxes and reduced cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We operate in a manner intended to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends upon our analysis of the fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise

determination, and for which we will not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to successfully manage the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Moreover, the proper classification of an instrument as debt or equity for federal income tax purposes, and the tax treatment of participation interests that we hold in mortgage loans and mezzanine loans, may be uncertain in some circumstances, which could affect the application of the REIT qualification requirements. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not contend that our interests in subsidiaries or other issuers will not cause a violation of the REIT requirements.

If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, we would be subject to federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates, and distributions to stockholders would not be deductible by us in computing our taxable income. Any such corporate tax liability could be substantial and would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders, which in turn could have an adverse impact on the value of, and trading prices for, our stock. Unless entitled to relief under certain Internal Revenue Code provisions, we also would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we ceased to qualify as a REIT.

Our failure to qualify as a REIT would create issues under a number of our financings and other agreements and would cause our common and preferred stock to be delisted from the NYSE.

Our failure to qualify as a REIT would create issues under a number of our financing and other agreements. In addition, the New York Stock Exchange requires, as a condition to the continued listing of our common and preferred shares, that we maintain our REIT status. Consequently, if we fail to maintain our REIT status, our common and preferred shares would promptly be delisted from the NYSE, which would decrease the trading activity of such shares. This could make it difficult to sell shares and could cause the market volume of the shares trading to decline.

If Newcastle was delisted as a result of losing its REIT status and desired to relist its shares on the NYSE, the Company would have to reapply to the NYSE to be listed as a domestic corporation. As the NYSE’s listing standards for REITs are less onerous than its standards for domestic corporations, it would be more difficult for the Company to become a listed company under these heightened standards. Given current conditions, Newcastle may not be able to satisfy the NYSE’s listing standards for a domestic corporation. As a result, if it were delisted from the NYSE, it may not be able to relist as a domestic corporation, and thus the Company’s common and preferred shares could not trade on the NYSE.

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

Tax law changes in 2010 extended the 2003 reduction of the maximum tax rate for dividends payable to individuals from 35% to 15% through 2012. Dividends payable by REITs, however, are generally not eligible for the reduced rates. Although this legislation does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our common stock. In addition, the relative attractiveness of real estate in general may be adversely affected by the newly favorable tax treatment given to corporate dividends, which could affect the value of our real estate assets negatively.

REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to execute our business plan.

We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our net taxable income, excluding any net capital gain, in order for corporate income tax not to apply to earnings that we distribute. We intend to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. However, differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash could require us to sell assets or borrow funds on a short-term or long-term basis to meet the 90% distribution requirement of the Internal Revenue Code. Certain of our assets may generate substantial mismatches between taxable income and available cash. As a result, the requirement to distribute a substantial portion of our net taxable income could cause us to: (i) sell assets in adverse market conditions, (ii) borrow on unfavorable terms or (iii) distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt, in order to comply with REIT requirements. Further, amounts distributed will not be available to fund investment activities. If we fail to obtain debt or equity capital in the future, it could limit our ability to satisfy our liquidity needs, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

As of December 31, 2009, we had a loss carryforward, inclusive of net operating loss and capital loss, of approximately $908 million. The net operating loss carryforward and capital loss carryforward can generally be used to offset future ordinary taxable income and capital gain, for up to 20 years and 5 years, respectively. As a result, we do not expect that there will be any REIT distribution requirements for the year ending December 31, 2010.

We may be required to report taxable income for certain investments in excess of the economic income we ultimately realize from them.

We may acquire debt instruments in the secondary market for less than their face amount. The amount of such discount will generally be treated as “market discount” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Accrued market discount is generally recognized as taxable income over our holding period in the instrument in advance of the receipt of cash. If we collect less on the debt instrument than our purchase price plus the market discount we had previously reported as income, we may not be able to benefit from any offsetting loss deductions.

In addition, we may acquire debt investments that are subsequently modified by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding debt are “significant modifications” under the applicable Treasury regulations, the modified debt may be considered to have been reissued to us in a debt-for-debt exchange with the borrower. In that event, we may be required to recognize taxable gain to the extent the principal amount of the modified debt exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified debt, even if the value of the debt or the payment expectations have not changed. Following such a taxable modification, we would hold the modified loan with a cost basis equal to its principal amount for U.S. federal tax purposes.

Moreover, in the event that any debt instruments acquired by us are delinquent as to mandatory principal and interest payments, or in the event payments with respect to a particular debt instrument are not made when due, we may nonetheless be required to continue to recognize the unpaid interest as taxable income. Similarly, we may be required to accrue interest income with respect to subordinate mortgage-backed securities at the stated rate regardless of whether corresponding cash payments are received.

The IRS tax rules regarding recognizing capital losses and ordinary income for our non-recourse financings, coupled with current REIT distribution requirements, could result in our recognizing significant taxable net income without receiving an equivalent amount of cash proceeds from which to make required distributions. This disconnect could have a serious, negative affect on us.

We may experience issues regarding the characterization of income for tax purposes. For example, we may recognize significant ordinary income, which we would not be able to offset with capital losses, which could, in turn, increase the amount of income we would be required to distribute to shareholders in order to maintain our REIT status. This disconnect could occur in the case of one or more of our non-recourse financing structures, including off balance sheet structures such as our subprime securitizations and non-consolidated CDOs, where we incur capital losses on the related assets, and ordinary income from the cancellation of the related non-recourse financing if the ultimate proceeds from the assets are insufficient to repay such debt. Through December 31, 2010, no such cancellation of CDO debt has been effected as a result of losses incurred. In the case of our subprime securitizations, $3.4 million of such cancellations had been effected through December 31, 2010 and we expect such cancellations will continue as losses are realized. This disconnect could also occur as a result of the repurchase of our outstanding debt at a discount as the gain recorded upon the cancellation of indebtedness is characterized as ordinary income for tax purposes. We have repurchased our debt at a discount in the past, and we intend to attempt to do so in the future. During 2009, we repurchased $246.7 million face amount of our outstanding CDO debt at a discount, and recorded $215.3 million of gain. During 2010, we purchased $483.7 million face amount of our outstanding CDO debt at a discount, and recorded $265.7 million of gain. In compliance with current tax laws, we have the ability to defer the ordinary income recorded as a result of the cancellation of indebtedness to future years and have deferred or intend to defer all or a portion of such gain for 2009 and 2010. While such deferral may postpone the effect of the disconnect in the ability to offset taxable income and losses, it does not eliminate it. Furthermore, cancellation of indebtedness income recognized on or after January 1, 2011 cannot be deferred and must generally be recognized as ordinary income in the year of such cancellation. The elimination of the ability to defer the recognition of cancellation of indebtedness income introduces additional tax implications that may significantly reduce the economic benefit of repurchasing our outstanding CDO debt.

If we experienced any of these disconnects, we may not have sufficient cashflow to make the distributions necessary to satisfy our REIT distribution requirements, which would cause us to lose our REIT status and thereby materially negatively impact our business, financial condition and potentially impair our ability to continue operating in the future. Under current market conditions, this type of disconnect between taxable income and cash proceeds would be likely to occur at some point in the future if the current regulations that create the disconnect are not revised, but we cannot predict at this time when such a disconnect may occur.

We may be unable to generate sufficient revenue from operations to pay our operating expenses and to pay distributions to our stockholders.

As a REIT, we are generally required to distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and not including net capital losses) each year to our stockholders. To qualify for the tax benefits accorded to REITs, we intend to make distributions to our stockholders in amounts such that we distribute all or substantially all our net taxable income each year, subject to certain adjustments. However, our ability to make distributions may be adversely affected by the risk factors described herein, particularly in light of current market conditions. In the

event of a continued downturn in our operating results and financial performance relative to previous periods or continued declines in the value of our asset portfolio, we may be unable to declare or pay quarterly distributions or make distributions to our stockholders, and we may elect to comply with our REIT distribution requirements by, after completing various procedural steps, distributing, under certain circumstances, up to 90% of the required amount in the form of common shares in lieu of cash. The timing and amount of distributions are in the sole discretion of our board of directors, which considers, among other factors, our earnings, financial condition, debt service obligations and applicable debt covenants, REIT qualification requirements and other tax considerations and capital expenditure requirements as our board may deem relevant from time to time.

The stock ownership limit imposed by the Internal Revenue Code for REITs and our charter may inhibit market activity in our stock and restrict our business combination opportunities.

In order for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code to include certain entities) at any time during the last half of each taxable year after our first year. Our charter, with certain exceptions, authorizes our board of directors to take the actions that are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Unless exempted by our board of directors, no person may own more than 8% of the aggregate value of our outstanding capital stock, treating classes and series of our stock in the aggregate, or more than 25% of the outstanding shares of our Series B Preferred Stock, Series C Preferred Stock or our Series D Preferred Stock. Our board may grant an exemption in its sole discretion, subject to such conditions, representations and undertakings as it may determine in its sole discretion. These ownership limits could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in our control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders. Our board has granted limited exemptions to an affiliate of our manager, a third party group of funds managed by Cohen & Steers, and certain affiliates of these entities.

Even if we remain qualified as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, tax on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, and state or local income, property and transfer taxes, such as mortgage recording taxes. Moreover, if a REIT distributes less than 85% of its taxable income to its stockholders during any calendar year (including any distributions declared by the last day of the calendar year but paid in the subsequent year), then it is required to pay an excise tax on 4% of any shortfall between the required 85% and the amount that was actually distributed. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our stockholders. In addition, in order to meet the REIT qualification requirements, or to avert the imposition of a 100% tax that applies to certain gains derived by a REIT from dealer property or inventory, we may hold some of our assets through taxable REIT subsidiaries. Such subsidiaries will be subject to corporate level income tax at regular rates.

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

To qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. We also may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to make certain attractive investments.

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

The existing REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code may substantially limit our ability to hedge our operations because a significant amount of the income from those hedging transactions is likely to be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both REIT gross income tests. In addition, we must limit our aggregate income from non-qualified hedging transactions, from our provision of services and from other non-qualifying sources, to less than 5% of our annual gross income (determined without regard to gross income from qualified hedging transactions). As a result, we may have to limit our use of certain hedging techniques or implement those hedges through total return swaps. This could result in greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to incur or could increase the cost of our hedging activities. If we fail to comply with these limitations, we could lose our REIT qualification for U.S. federal income tax purposes, unless our failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, and we meet certain other technical requirements. Even if our failure was due to reasonable cause, we might incur a penalty tax.

The “taxable mortgage pool” rules may increase the taxes that we or our stockholders may incur, and may limit the manner in which we effect future securitizations.

Certain of our securitizations have resulted in the creation of taxable mortgage pools for federal income tax purposes. As a REIT, so long as we own 100% of the equity interests in a taxable mortgage pool, we would generally not be adversely affected by the characterization of the securitization as a taxable mortgage pool. Certain categories of stockholders, however, such as foreign stockholders eligible for treaty or other benefits, stockholders with net operating losses, and certain tax-exempt stockholders that are subject to unrelated business income tax, could be subject to increased taxes on a portion of their dividend income from us that is attributable to the taxable mortgage pool. In addition, to the extent that our stock is owned by tax-exempt “disqualified organizations,” such as certain government-related entities and charitable remainder trusts that are not subject to tax on unrelated business income, we may incur a corporate level tax on a portion of our income from the taxable mortgage pool. In that case, we may reduce the amount of our distributions to any disqualified organization whose stock ownership gave rise to the tax.

Maintenance of our Investment Company Act exemption imposes limits on our operations.

We conduct our operations so as not to become regulated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. We believe that there are a number of exemptions under the Investment Company Act that may be applicable to us. The assets that we may acquire, therefore, are limited by the provisions of the Investment Company Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the Investment Company Act. In addition, we could, among other things, be required either (a) to change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company or (b) to register as an investment company, either of which could adversely affect us and the market price for our stock.

ERISA may restrict investments by plans in our common stock.

A plan fiduciary considering an investment in our common stock should consider, among other things, whether such an investment is consistent with the fiduciary obligations under ERISA, including whether such investment might constitute or give rise to a prohibited transaction under ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code or any substantially similar federal, state or local law and, if so, whether an exemption from such prohibited transaction rules is available.

Maryland takeover statutes may prevent a change of our control. This could depress our stock price.

Under Maryland law, “business combinations” between a Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder or an affiliate of an interested stockholder are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. These business combinations include certain mergers, consolidations, share exchanges, or, in circumstances specified in the statute, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities or a liquidation or dissolution. An interested stockholder is defined as:

—

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

—

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

A person is not an interested stockholder under the statute if the board of directors approved in advance the transaction by which he or she otherwise would have become an interested stockholder.

After the five-year prohibition, any business combination between the Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder generally must be recommended by the board of directors of the corporation and approved by the affirmative vote of at least:

—

80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of outstanding shares of voting stock of the corporation voting together as a single group; and

—

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

The business combination statute may discourage others from trying to acquire control of us and increase the difficulty of consummating any offer, including potential acquisitions that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Our authorized, but unissued common and preferred stock may prevent a change in our control.

Our charter authorizes us to issue additional authorized but unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock. In addition, our board of directors may classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common stock or preferred stock and may

set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares. As a result, our board may establish a series of preferred stock that could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Our stockholder rights plan could inhibit a change in our control.

We have adopted a stockholder rights agreement. Under the terms of the rights agreement, in general, if a person or group acquires more than 15% of the outstanding shares of our common stock, all of our other common 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. The rights agreement may have the effect of inhibiting or impeding a change in control not approved by our board of directors and, therefore, could adversely affect our stockholders’ ability to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price for our common stock in connection with such a transaction. In addition, since our board of directors can prevent the rights agreement from operating, in the event our board approves of an acquiring person, the rights agreement gives our board of directors significant discretion over whether a potential acquirer’s efforts to acquire a large interest in us will be successful. Because the rights agreement contains provisions that are designed to assure that the executive officers, our manager and its affiliates will never, alone, be considered a group that is an acquiring person, the rights agreement provides the executive officers, our manager and its affiliates with certain advantages under the rights agreement that are not available to other stockholders.

Our staggered board and other provisions of our charter and bylaws may prevent a change in our control.

Our board of directors is divided into three classes of directors. Directors of each class are chosen for three-year terms upon the expiration of their current terms, and each year one class of directors is elected by the stockholders. The staggered terms of our directors may reduce the possibility of a tender offer or an attempt at a change in control, even though a tender offer or change in control might be in the best interest of our stockholders. In addition, our charter and bylaws also contain other provisions that may delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Risks Related to Our Common Shares

Our share price has fluctuated meaningfully, particularly on a percentage basis, and may fluctuate meaningfully in the future. Accordingly, you may not be able to resell your shares at or above the price at which you purchased them.

The trading price of our common shares has fluctuated significantly over the last three years. Moreover, future share price fluctuations could likely be subject to similarly wide price fluctuations in the future in response to various factors, including:

—

market conditions in the broader stock market in general, or in the REIT or real estate industry in particular;

—

market perception of our current and projected financial condition, potential growth, future earnings and future cash dividends;

—

announcements we make regarding dividends;

—

actual or anticipated fluctuations in our quarterly financial and operating results;

—

market perception or media coverage of our manager or its affiliates;

—

actions by rating agencies;

—

short sales of our common stock;

—

issuance of new or changed securities analysts’ reports or recommendations;

—

media coverage of us, other REITs or the outlook of the real estate industry;

—

major reductions in trading volumes on the exchanges on which we operate;

—

credit deterioration within our portfolio;

—

legislative or regulatory developments, including changes in the status of our regulatory approvals or licenses; and

—

litigation and governmental investigations.

These and other factors may cause the market price and demand for our common shares to fluctuate substantially, which may negatively affect the price or liquidity of our common shares. Moreover, the recent market conditions have negatively impacted our share price and may do so in the future. When the market price of a stock has been volatile or has decreased significantly in the past, holders of that stock have, at times, instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our shareholders brought a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending, settling or paying any resulting judgments related to the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of our management from our business and hurt our share price.

We may be unable – or elect not – to pay dividends on our common or preferred shares in the future, which would negatively impact our business in a number of ways and decrease the price of our common and preferred shares.

We have not paid dividends on our common stock since the third fiscal quarter of 2008. While we are required to make distributions in order to maintain our REIT status (as described above under “–We may be unable to generate sufficient revenue from operations to pay our operating expenses and to pay distributions to our stockholders”), we may elect not to maintain our REIT status, in which case we would no longer be required to make such distributions. Moreover, even if we do elect to maintain our REIT status, we may elect to comply with the applicable requirements by, after completing various procedural steps, distributing, under certain circumstances, up to 90% of the required amount in the form of common shares in lieu of cash. If we elect not to maintain our REIT status or to satisfy any required distributions in common shares in lieu of cash, such action could negatively affect our business and financial condition as well as the price of both our common and preferred shares. No assurance can be given that we will pay any dividends on our common shares in the future.

To the extent we have unpaid accrued dividends on our preferred shares, we cannot pay any dividends on our common shares, pay any consideration to repurchase or otherwise acquire shares of our common stock or redeem any shares of any series of our preferred stock without redeeming all of our outstanding preferred shares in accordance with the governing documentation. Consequently, the failure to pay dividends on our preferred shares restricts the actions that we may take with respect to our common shares and preferred shares. Moreover, if we do not pay dividends on any series of preferred stock for six or more periods, then holders of each affected series obtain the right to call a special meeting and elect two members to our board of directors. We cannot predict whether the holders of our preferred stock would take such action or, if taken, how long the process would take or what impact the two new directors on our board of directors would have on our company (other than increasing our director compensation costs). However, the election of additional directors would affect the composition of our board of directors and, thus, could affect the management of our business.

Shares eligible for future sale may adversely affect our common stock price.

Sales of our common stock or other securities in the public or private market, or the perception that these sales may occur, could cause the market price of our common stock to decline. This could also impair our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of our equity securities. Under our certificate of incorporation, we are authorized to issue up to 500,000,000 shares of common stock, of which 62,027,184 shares of common stock were outstanding as of December 31, 2010. We cannot predict the size of future issuances of our common stock or other securities or the effect, if any, that future sales and issuances would have on the market price of our common stock.

An increase in market interest rates may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell shares of our common stock is our distribution rate as a percentage of our share price relative to market interest rates. If the market price of our common stock is based primarily on the earnings and return that we derive from our investments and income with respect to our investments and our related distributions to stockholders, and not from the market value of the investments themselves, then interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions will likely affect the market price of our common stock. For instance, if market interest rates rise without an increase in our distribution rate, the market price of our common stock could decrease as potential investors may require a higher distribution yield on our common stock or seek other securities paying higher distributions or interest. In addition, rising interest rates would result in increased interest expense on our variable rate debt, thereby adversely affecting cash flow and our ability to service our indebtedness and pay distributions.

Item 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments

We have no unresolved staff comments received more than 180 days prior to December 31, 2010.

Item 2.

Properties.

As of December 31, 2010, we have no material investments in properties.

Our manager leases principal executive and administrative offices located at 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10105. Its telephone number is (212) 798-6100.

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings.

We are not a party to any material legal proceedings. No material proceedings were terminated during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year covered by this report.

Item 4.

(Removed and Reserved).

PART II

Item 5.

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

We have one class of common stock, which has been listed and is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol “NCT” since our initial public offering in October 2002. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high, low and last sale prices in dollars on the NYSE for our common stock and the distributions we declared with respect to the periods indicated.


2010	High	Low	Last Sale	Distributions Declared
First Quarter	$3.35	$1.75	$3.23	$ -

Second Quarter	$4.18	$2.00	$2.68	$ -

Third Quarter	$3.20	$2.24	$3.10	$ -

Fourth Quarter	$7.10	$3.02	$6.70	$ -

2009	High	Low	Last Sale	Distributions Declared
First Quarter	$0.95	$0.25	$0.65	$ -

Second Quarter	$1.25	$0.55	$0.66	$ -

Third Quarter	$3.94	$0.49	$2.97	$ -

Fourth Quarter	$3.25	$1.30	$2.09	$ -

We may declare quarterly distributions on our common stock. No assurance, however, can be given that any future distributions will be made or, if made, as to the amounts or timing of any future distributions as such distributions are subject to our earnings, financial condition, liquidity, capital requirements, REIT requirements and such other factors as our board of directors deems relevant. As described under Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Market Considerations,” we recently elected not to declare quarterly dividends on either our common shares.

On February 17, 2011, the closing sale price for our common stock, as reported on the NYSE, was $8.00. As of February 17, 2011, there were approximately 81 record holders of our common stock. This figure does not reflect the beneficial ownership of shares held in nominee name.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table summarizes the total number of outstanding securities in the incentive plan and the number of securities remaining for future issuance, as well as the weighted average exercise price of all outstanding securities as of December 31, 2010.

Plan Category

Number of Securities to be
Issued Upon Exercise of
Outstanding Options

Weighted Average
Exercise Price of
Outstanding Options

Number of Securities Remaining
Available for Future Issuance
Under Equity Compensation
Plans

Equity Compensation Plans Approved
by Security Holders:

Newcastle Investment Corp. Nonqualified

Stock Option and Incentive Award Plan

2,498,609 (1)

$26.64

6,347,153 (2)

Equity Compensation Plans Not Approved
by Security Holders:

None

N/A

(1)	Includes options for (i) 1,686,447 shares held by an affiliate of our manager; (ii) 798,162 shares granted to our manager and assigned to certain of Fortress’s employees; and (iii) an aggregate of 14,000 shares held by our directors, other than Mr. Edens.

(2)

The maximum available for issuance is equal to 10% of the number of outstanding equity interests, subject to a maximum of 10,000,000 shares in the aggregate over the term of the plan. The number of securities remaining available for future issuance is net of an aggregate of 111,120 shares of our common stock awards to our directors, other than Mr. Edens and Mr. Riis, representing the aggregate annual automatic stock awards to each such director for 2003 through 2010, and of 1,043,118 shares issued to our manager and its affiliates, certain of our directors, and employees of Fortress, upon the exercise of previously granted options.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

In March 2010, we settled an offer to exchange (the “Exchange Offer”) shares of our common stock and cash for shares of our preferred stock. The table below provides information about the shares of our preferred stock that we purchased as part of the Exchange Offer. For more information about the Exchange Offer, see Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Preferred Stock” or Note 9 to Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” Other than the purchases described in the table below, no purchases of shares of any class of our equity securities were made by us or on our behalf or by any “affiliated purchaser,” as defined in the SEC’s rules, during the period covered by this Annual Report.

Period

Total Number of Shares
Purchased

Average Price Paid per
Share(1)

Total Number of Shares
Purchased as Part of Publicly
Announced Plans or
Programs

Maximum Number (or
Approximate Dollar Value) of
Shares that May Yet Be
Purchased Under the Plans or
Programs

March 23, 2010

• 1,152,679 Series B Preferred shares

• 1,104,000 Series C Preferred shares

• 1,380,000 Series D Preferred shares

• $12.22 per Series B Preferred share

• $12.22 per Series C Preferred share

• $12.22 per Series D Preferred share

Same as total

N/A – Exchange Offer settled in March 2010

(1)	As noted above, we purchased the preferred shares for a combination of common stock and cash. Of the average price paid per share $7.82 was paid in stock and $4.40 was paid in cash.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

The selected historical consolidated financial information set forth below as of and for each of the five years ended December 31, 2010 has been derived from our audited historical consolidated financial statements.

The information below should be read in conjunction with Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Selected Consolidated Financial Information

(in thousands, except per share data)


	Year Ended December 31,
	2010		2009		2008		2007		2006
Operating Data
Interest income	$	300,272	$	361,866	$	468,867	$	680,535	$	529,818
Interest expense		172,219		218,410		307,303		476,932		374,269

Net interest income		128,053		143,456		161,564		203,603		155,549


Impairment, net of the reversal of prior valuation allowances on loans		(240,858)		548,540		2,991,830		220,321		13,565


Net interest income (loss) after impairment		368,911		(405,084)		(2,830,266)		(16,718)		141,984

Other income (loss)		282,287		227,399		(112,809)		(8,885)		23,660
Expenses		29,528		31,901		32,623		39,724		38,172


Income (loss) from continuing operations		621,670		(209,586)		(2,975,698)		(65,327)		127,472
Income (loss) from discontinued operations		(8)		(318)		(9,654)		(130)		451

Net income (loss)		621,662		(209,904)		(2,985,352)		(65,457)		127,923
Preferred dividends		(7,453)		(13,501)		(13,501)		(12,640)		(9,314)
Excess of carrying amount of exchanged preferred stock over fair value of consideration paid		43,043		-		-		-		-

Income (loss) applicable to common stockholders	$	657,252	$	(223,405)	$	(2,998,853)	$	(78,097)	$	118,609

Income (loss) per share of common stock, diluted	$	10.96	$	(4.23)	$	(56.81)	$	(1.52)	$	2.67

Income (loss) from continuing operations per share of common stock, after preferred dividends and excess of carrying amount of exchanged preferred stock over fair value of consideration paid, diluted	$	10.96	$	(4.22)	$	(56.63)	$	(1.52)	$	2.66


Weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding, diluted		59,949		52,864		52,785		51,369		44,417

Dividends declared per share of common stock	$	-	$	-	$	0.750	$	2.850	$	2.615


	As Of December 31,
	2010		2009		2008		2007		2006
Balance Sheet Data
Non-Recourse VIE Financing Structures
Real estate securities, net	$	1,859,984	$	1,784,487	$	1,472,253	$	3,507,813	$	4,149,047
Real estate related loans, net		750,130		554,367		696,523		1,418,382		792,986
Residential mortgage loans, held for investment, net		124,974		-		-		529,975		782,077
Residential mortgage loans, held for sale, net		252,915		380,123		406,265		-		-
Operating real estate		8,776		-		-		-		-
Other investments		18,883		-		-		-		-
Restricted cash		157,005		200,251		37,483		65,578		136,812
Total assets		3,612,733		3,358,877		3,050,535		5,963,778		6,229,419
Total debt		3,689,875		4,765,631		5,138,627		5,755,207		5,423,991
Total liabilities		3,875,181		4,971,677		5,474,308		5,863,916		5,451,892

Recourse Financing Structures and Unlevered Assets
Real estate securities, net		600		46,308		196,495		1,328,071		1,432,181
Real estate related loans, net		32,475		19,495		146,689		438,596		775,930
Residential mortgage loans, held for sale, net		298		3,524		3,367		104,630		27,020
Operating real estate		-		9,966		11,866		34,399		29,626
Other investments		6,024		-		-		-		-
Cash and cash equivalents		33,524		68,300		49,746		55,916		5,371
Restricted cash		-		-		6,799		67,548		47,357
Total assets		74,378		155,751		423,088		2,073,992		2,374,973
Total debt		55,936		174,573		376,572		1,636,487		2,080,740
Total liabilities		59,515		183,603		392,847		1,726,229		2,150,520

Aggregate
Total assets		3,687,111		3,514,628		3,473,623		8,037,770		8,604,392
Total debt		3,745,811		4,940,204		5,515,199		7,391,694		7,504,731
Total liabilities		3,934,696		5,155,280		5,867,155		7,590,145		7,602,412
Common stockholders’ equity (deficit)		(309,168)		(1,793,152)		(2,546,032)		295,125		899,480
Preferred stock		61,583		152,500		152,500		152,500		102,500

Supplemental Balance Sheet Data

Common shares outstanding		62,027		52,913		52,789		52,779		45,714
Book value (deficit) per share of common stock	$	(4.98)	$	(33.89)	$	(48.23)	$	5.59	$	19.68

	Year Ended December 31,
	2010		2009		2008		2007		2006
Other Data
Net interest income less expenses (net of preferred dividends) (1)	$	91,072	$	98,054	$	115,440	$	151,239	$	108,063

(1)

Newcastle has five primary variables that impact its operating performance: (i) the current yield earned on its investments that are not included in non-recourse financing structures (i.e., unlevered investments and investments subject to recourse debt), (ii) the net yield it earns from its non-recourse financing structures, (iii) the interest expense and dividends incurred under its recourse debt and preferred stock, (iv) its operating expenses, and (v) its realized and unrealized gains on its investments and its debt obligations, including impairment. Net Interest Income Less Expenses (Net of Preferred Dividends) is a measure of the operating performance of Newcastle that excludes the fifth variable listed above. It is used by management to gauge the current performance of Newcastle without taking into account gains and losses, which, although they represent a part of our recurring operations, are subject to significant variability and are only a potential indicator of future economic performance. Management views Net Interest Income Less Expenses (Net of Preferred Dividends) as Newcastle’s “core” current earnings, while gains and losses (including impairment) are simply a potential indicator of future earnings. Management believes that Net Interest Income Less Expenses (Net of Preferred Dividends) provides investors with useful information regarding Newcastle’s “core” current earnings, and it enables investors to evaluate Newcastle’s current performance using the same measure that management uses to operate the business.

Net interest income less expenses (net of preferred dividends) does not represent cash generated from operating activities in accordance with GAAP and therefore should not be considered an alternative to net income as an indicator of our operating performance or as an alternative to cash flow as a measure of our liquidity and is not necessarily indicative of cash available to fund cash needs. For a further description of the differences between cash flow provided by operating and net income, see “– Liquidity and Capital Resources” above. Our calculation of net interest income less expenses (net of preferred dividends) may be different from the calculation used by other companies and, therefore, comparability may be limited.

Calculation of Net Interest Income Less Expenses (Net of Preferred Dividends):


	Year Ended December 31,
	2010		2009		2008		2007		2006

Income (loss) applicable to common stockholders	$	657,252	$	(223,405)	$	(2,998,853)	$	(78,097)	$	118,609
Add (Deduct):

Impairment, net of the reversal of prior valuation allowances on loans		(240,858)		548,540		2,991,830		220,321		13,565

Other (income) loss		(282,287)		(227,399)		112,809		8,885		(23,660)

(Income) loss from discontinued operations		8		318		9,654		130		(451)

Excess of carrying amount of exchanged preferred stock over fair value of consideration paid		(43,043)		-		-		-		-


	$	91,072	$	98,054	$	115,440	$	151,239	$	108,063

Item 7.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,” and Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors.”

General

Newcastle Investment Corp. is a real estate investment and finance company. We invest in, and actively manage, a portfolio of real estate securities, loans and other real estate related assets. Our objective is to maximize the difference between the yield on our investments and the cost of financing these investments while hedging our interest rate risk. We emphasize portfolio management, asset quality, liquidity, diversification, match funded financing and credit risk management.

As described below, we meaningfully improved on our operating results, liquidity, and book value during 2010.

We currently own a diversified portfolio of credit sensitive real estate debt investments, including securities and loans. Our portfolio of real estate securities includes commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS), senior unsecured debt issued by REITs, real estate related asset backed securities (ABS) and FNMA/FHLMC securities. Mortgage backed securities are interests in or obligations secured by pools of mortgage loans. We generally target investments rated A through BB, except for our FNMA/FHLMC securities which have an implied AAA rating. We also own, directly and indirectly, interests in loans and pools of loans, including real estate related loans, commercial mortgage loans, residential mortgage loans, manufactured housing loans and subprime mortgage loans.

We employ leverage as part of our investment strategy. We do not have a predetermined target debt to equity ratio as we believe the appropriate leverage for the particular assets we are financing depends on the credit quality of those assets. As a result of our negative GAAP equity, our GAAP debt to equity ratio is not a meaningful measure as of December 31, 2010. As of December 31, 2010, we have complied with the general investment guidelines adopted by our board of directors that limit total leverage. We utilize leverage for the sole purpose of financing our portfolio and not for the purpose of speculating on changes in interest rates.

We strive to maintain access to a broad array of capital resources in an effort to insulate our business from potential fluctuations in the availability of capital. We seek to utilize multiple forms of financing including collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), other securitizations, term loans, and trust preferred securities, as well as short term financing in the form of loans and repurchase agreements. As we discuss in more detail under “– Market Considerations” below, while market conditions have improved meaningfully since 2008, the current conditions continue to reduce the array of capital resources available to us and have made the terms of capital resources we are able to obtain less favorable to us relative to the terms we were able to obtain prior to the onset of challenging conditions. That said, credit and liquidity conditions have continued to improve during 2010 and early 2011, and, as a result, we have recently been able to access more types at capital – and on better terms – than we had been able to access during 2008 and 2009.

We seek to match fund our investments with respect to interest rates and maturities in order to reduce the impact of interest rate fluctuations on earnings and reduce the risk of refinancing our liabilities prior to the maturity of the investments. We seek to finance a substantial portion of our real estate securities and loans through the issuance of term debt, which generally represents obligations issued in multiple classes secured by an underlying portfolio of assets. Specifically, our CDO financings offer us the structural flexibility to buy and sell certain investments to manage risk and, subject to certain limitations, to optimize returns.

We conduct our business through the following segments: (i) investments financed with non-recourse collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”), (ii) investments financed with other non-recourse debt, (iii) investments and debt repurchases financed with recourse debt, (iv) unlevered investments, and (v) corporate. With respect to the first two nonrecourse segments, Newcastle is generally entitled to receive net cash flows from these structures on a periodic basis. Revenues attributable to each segment are disclosed below (unaudited) (in thousands).


	Non-recourse
											Inter-segment
For the Year Ended	CDOs		Other		Recourse		Unlevered		Corporate		Elimination		Total
December 31, 2010	$	226,717	$	72,773	$	976	$	1,653	$	68	$	(1,915)	$	300,272
December 31, 2009	$	275,938	$	76,868	$	7,416	$	1,543	$	101	$	-	$	361,866
December 31, 2008	$	307,891	$	88,643	$	47,707	$	22,672	$	1,954	$	-	$	468,867

Taxation

We have elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and we intend to continue to operate in such a manner. Our current and continuing qualification as a REIT depends on our ability to meet various tax law requirements, including, among others, requirements relating to the sources of our income, the nature of our assets, the composition of our stockholders, and the timing and amount of distributions that we make. REIT distribution requirements may generally be satisfied up to 90% through stock dividends rather than cash, subject to limitations based on the value of the stock.

As a REIT, we will generally not be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on that portion of our income that is distributed to stockholders if we distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income to our stockholders by prescribed dates and comply with various other requirements. We may, however, nevertheless be subject to certain state, local and foreign income and other taxes, and to U.S. federal income and excise taxes and penalties in certain situations, including taxes on our undistributed income. In addition, our stockholders may be subject to state, local or foreign taxation in various jurisdictions, including those in which they transact business or reside. The state, local and foreign tax treatment of us and our stockholders may not conform to the U.S. federal income tax treatment.

If, in any taxable year, we fail to satisfy one or more of the various tax law requirements, we could fail to qualify as a REIT. If we fail to qualify as a REIT for a particular tax year, our income in that year would be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax), and we may need to borrow funds or liquidate certain investments in order to pay the applicable tax, or we may not be able to pay it. Unless entitled to relief under certain statutory provisions, we would also be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification is lost. Moreover, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we would be delisted from the NYSE.

Although we currently intend to operate in a manner designed to qualify as a REIT, it is possible that economic, market, legal, tax or other developments may cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT, or may cause our board of directors to revoke the REIT election, including certain potential developments discussed in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors.”

Market Considerations

Financial Markets in which We Operate

Our ability to generate income is dependent on our ability to invest our capital on a timely basis at attractive levels. The two primary market factors that affect this ability are (1) credit spreads and (2) the availability of financing on favorable terms.

Generally speaking, widening credit spreads reduce any unrealized gains on our current investments (or cause or increase unrealized losses) and increase our costs for new financings, but increase the yields available on potential new investments, while tightening credit spreads increase the unrealized gains (or reduce unrealized losses) on our current investments and reduce our costs for new financings, but reduce the yields available on potential new investments. By reducing unrealized gains (or causing unrealized losses), widening credit spreads also impact our ability to realize gains on existing investments if we were to sell such assets.

From mid-2007 through early 2009, credit spreads widened substantially. One of the key drivers of the widening of credit spreads over these years was the continued disruption and liquidity concerns throughout the credit markets. The severity and scope of the disruption intensified meaningfully during the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009. In the latter part of 2009, credit spreads tightened substantially. This trend continued in 2010. This tightening of credit spreads caused the net unrealized losses on our securities and derivatives to decrease. Despite signs of meaningful improvement, market conditions remain challenging, could change rapidly, and we cannot predict how recent or future changes in market conditions will affect our business.

Liquidity

Credit and liquidity conditions have continued to improve during 2010 and early 2011, but conditions are still less favorable than those we experienced prior to 2007. Recent challenging credit and liquidity conditions have adversely affected us and the markets in which we operate in a number of ways. For example, it has reduced the market trading activity for many real estate securities and loans, resulting in less liquid markets for those securities and loans. As the securities held by us and many other companies in our industry are marked to market at the end of each quarter, the decreased liquidity and concern over market conditions have resulted in significant reductions in mark to market valuations of many real estate securities and loans and the collateral underlying them, as well as volatility and uncertainty with respect to such valuations. These lower valuations, and decreased expectations of future cash flows, have affected us by, among other things:

—

decreasing our net book value;

—

contributing to our decision to record significant impairment charges;

—

prompting us to negotiate the removal of certain financial covenants from our non-CDO financings;

—

reducing the amount, which we refer to as cushion, by which we satisfy the over collateralization and interest coverage tests of our CDOs (sometimes referred to as CDO “triggers”) or contributing to several of our CDOs failing their over collateralization tests (see “– Liquidity and Capital Resources” and “– Debt Obligations” below); and

—

requiring us to pay additional amounts under certain financing arrangements.

In some cases, we have sold, and we may continue to sell, assets at prices below what we believed to be their value in order to meet liquidity requirements under certain financing arrangements. Failed CDO triggers, impairments resulting from incurred losses, and asset sales made at prices significantly below face amount while the related debt is being repaid at its full face amount, as well as the retention of cash, could further contribute to reductions in future earnings, cash flow and liquidity.

In order to maintain liquidity, we have elected not to declare dividends on our common stock since the third quarter of 2008. With respect to our preferred stock, our improved liquidity position enabled us to pay all accrued and unpaid dividends on our preferred stock as of January 31, 2011. We may elect to adjust or not to pay any future dividend payments to reflect our current and expected cash from operations or to satisfy future liquidity needs.

Extent of Market Disruption

Market conditions have meaningfully improved over the last eighteen months, but it is not clear whether a sustained recovery will occur or, if so, for how long it will last. We do not currently know the full extent to which the continuing challenging market conditions will affect us or the markets in which we operate. If such conditions persist, particularly with respect to commercial real estate, we may experience additional impairment charges, potential reductions in cash flows from our investments and additional challenges in raising capital and obtaining investment or other financing on attractive terms. Moreover, we will likely need to continue to place a high priority on managing our liquidity. Certain aspects of these effects are more fully described in Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Interest Rate, Credit and Spread Risk” and “– Liquidity and Capital Resources” as well as in Part II, Item 7A, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

Formation and Organization

We were formed and had our initial public offering in 2002.

The following table presents information on shares of our common stock issued since our formation:


Year	Shares Issued		Range of Issue Prices (1)	Net Proceeds (millions)
Formation - 2005		43,913,409
2006		1,800,408	$29.42		$51.2
2007		7,065,362	$27.75-$31.30		$201.3
2008		9,871	N/A		$0.1
2009		123,463	N/A		$0.1
2010		9,114,671	$3.13		$28.5

December 31, 2010		62,027,184

(1)	Excludes prices of shares issued pursuant to the exercise of options and of shares issued to our independent directors. Includes prices of shares issued in exchange for preferred stock.

As of December 31, 2010, approximately 3.8 million of our shares of common stock were held by Fortress, through its affiliates, and principals of Fortress. In addition, Fortress, through its affiliates, held options to purchase approximately 1.7 million shares of our common stock at December 31, 2010.

Application of Critical Accounting Policies

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires the use of estimates and assumptions that could affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities

and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses. Actual results could differ from these estimates. Management believes that the estimates and assumptions utilized in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements are prudent and reasonable. Actual results have been in line with Management’s estimates and judgments used in applying each of the accounting policies described below, as modified periodically to reflect current market conditions. A summary of our significant accounting policies is presented in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements, which appear in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” The following is a summary of our accounting policies that are most effected by judgments, estimates and assumptions.

Variable Interest Entities

Variable interest entities (“VIEs”) are defined as entities in which equity investors do not have the characteristics of a controlling financial interest or do not have sufficient equity at risk for the entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support from other parties. A VIE is required to be consolidated by its primary beneficiary, and only its primary beneficiary, which is defined as the party who has the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact its economic performance and who has the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE.

The VIEs in which we have a significant interest include (i) our CDOs, and (ii) our manufactured housing loan financing structures. Our CDOs were all consolidated under prior guidance; however, under current guidance effective January 1, 2010, we do not have the power to direct the relevant activities of CDO VII, as a result of the event of default which allows us to be removed as collateral manager of CDO VII and prevents us from purchasing or selling certain collateral within CDO VII, and therefore we have deconsolidated CDO VII as of January 1, 2010. Similar events of default in the future, if they occur, could cause us to deconsolidate additional financing structures. Our manufactured housing loan financing structures were consolidated under prior guidance and continue to be consolidated under the current guidance. However, as discussed in “- Liquidity and Capital Resources – Debt Obligations”, we completed a securitization transaction to refinance our Manufactured Housing Loans Portfolio I. We analyzed the securitization under the applicable accounting guidance and concluded that the securitization transaction should be accounted for as a secured borrowing. As a result, we continue to recognize the portfolio of manufactured housing loans as pledged assets, which have been classified as loans held for investment at securitization, and recorded the notes issued to third parties as a secured borrowing.

Our subprime securitizations are also considered VIEs, but we do not control their activities and no longer receive a significant portion of their returns. These subprime securitizations were not consolidated under the current or prior guidance.

In addition, our investments in CMBS, CDO securities and loans may be deemed to be variable interests in VIEs, depending on their structure. We are not obligated to provide, nor have we provided, any financial support to these VIEs. We monitor these investments and, to the extent we determine that we potentially own a majority of the currently controlling class, analyze them for potential consolidation. As of December 31, 2010, we have not consolidated these potential VIEs due to the determination that, based on the nature of Newcastle’s investments and the provisions governing these structures, we do not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact their economic performance.

We will continue to analyze future investments, as well as reconsideration events in existing entities, pursuant to the VIE requirements. These analyses require considerable judgment in determining the primary beneficiary of a VIE since they involve estimated probability weighting of subjectively determined possible cash flow scenarios. The result could be the consolidation of an entity that would otherwise not have been consolidated or the non-consolidation of an entity that would otherwise have been consolidated.

Valuation and Impairment of Securities

We have classified all our real estate securities as available for sale. As such, they are carried at fair value with net unrealized gains or losses reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income, to the extent impairment losses are considered temporary as described below. Fair value may be based upon broker quotations, counterparty quotations or pricing services quotations, which provide valuation estimates based upon reasonable market order indications or a good faith estimate thereof and are subject to significant variability based on market conditions, such as interest rates, credit spreads and market liquidity. A significant portion of our securities are currently not traded in active markets and therefore have little or no price transparency. For a further discussion of this trend, see “– Market Considerations” above. As a result, we have estimated the fair value of these illiquid securities based on internal pricing models rather than the sources described above. The determination of estimated cash flows used in pricing models is inherently subjective and imprecise. Changes in market conditions, as well as changes in the assumptions or methodology used to determine fair value, could result in a significant and immediate increase or decrease in our book equity. For securities valued with pricing models, these inputs include the discount rate, assumptions relating to prepayments, default rates and loss severities, as well as other variables.

See Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for information regarding the fair value of our investments, and its estimation methodology, as of December 31, 2010.

Our securities must be categorized by the “level” of inputs used in estimating their fair values. Level 1 would be assets valued based on quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets. We have no level 1 assets. Level 2 would be assets valued based on quoted prices in active markets for similar instruments, on quoted prices in less active or inactive markets, or on other “observable” market inputs. Level 3 would be assets valued based significantly on “unobservable” market inputs. We have further broken level 3 into level 3A, third party indications, and level 3B, internal models. Fair value under GAAP represents an exit price in the normal course of business, not a forced liquidation price. If we were forced to sell assets in a short period to meet liquidity needs, the prices we receive could be substantially less than the recorded fair values.

We generally classify the broker and pricing service quotations we receive as level 3A inputs, except for certain liquid securities. They are quoted prices in generally inactive and illiquid markets for identical or similar securities. These quotations are generally received via email and contain disclaimers which state that they are “indicative” and not “actionable” – meaning that the party giving the quotation is not bound to actually purchase the security at the quoted price. These quotations are generally based on models prepared by the brokers, and we have little visibility into the inputs they use. Based on quarterly procedures we have performed with respect to quotations received from these brokers, including comparison to the outputs generated from our internal pricing models and transactions we have completed with respect to these securities, as well as on our knowledge and experience of these markets, we have generally determined that these quotes represent a reasonable estimate of fair value. For the $1.6 billion of securities valued using quotations as of December 31, 2010, a 100 basis point change in credit spreads would impact estimated fair value by approximately $41.7 million.

Our estimation of the fair value of level 3B assets (as described below) involves significant judgment. We validated the inputs and outputs of our models by comparing them to available independent third party market parameters and models for reasonableness. We believe the assumptions we used are within the range that a market participant would use and factor in the relative illiquidity, but slight recent improvement in liquidity, currently in the markets. In comparison to the prior year end, we have generally used lower discount rates as inputs to our models in order to reflect current improved market conditions. The other inputs to our models, including prepayment spreads, default rates and severity assumptions, have generally remained consistent with the assumptions used at the prior year end, other than certain modifications we have made to reflect conditions relevant to specific assets. In 2008 and 2009, Newcastle generally lowered the prepayment assumptions based on observed reductions in actual prepayment speeds and slower expected future prepayments consistent with market projections. The slower prepayments were the result of increasing difficulties for borrowers to refinance, caused by a tightening of underwriting standards, decline in home prices, contraction of available lenders due to bank failures and a distressed securitization market. Default assumptions were increased due to higher levels of delinquent underlying loans. Loss severity assumptions were increased based on observed increases in recent loss severities that have been driven by falling home prices and the increasing number of foreclosures or distressed home sales in the residential sector and higher losses as a result of the increasing number of foreclosures and bankruptcies of borrowers experienced in the commercial sector. The discount rate assumption used to value subprime and other asset backed securities was generally decreased as a result of increased liquidity in the market.

For debt securities valued with internal models, which have an aggregate fair value of $232.0 million as of December 31, 2010, a 10% unfavorable change in our assumptions would result in the following decreases in such aggregate fair value (in thousands):


	CMBS		ABS
Outstanding face amount	$	570,688	$	289,786

Fair value	$	128,603	$	103,409

Effect on fair value with 10% unfavorable change in:
Discount rate	$	(3,584)	$	(3,595)
Prepayment rate		N/A	$	(862)
Default rate	$	(28,132)	$	(6,444)
Loss severity	$	(13,907)	$	(12,443)

The sensitivity analysis is hypothetical and should be used with caution. In particular, the results are calculated by stressing a particular economic assumption independent of changes in any other assumption; in practice, changes in one factor may result in changes in another, which might counteract or amplify the sensitivities. Also, changes in the fair value based on a 10% variation in an assumption generally may not be extrapolated because the relationship of the change in the assumption to the change in fair value may not be linear.

We must also assess whether unrealized losses on securities, if any, reflect a decline in value which is other-than-temporary and, if so, write the impaired security down to its fair value through earnings. A decline in value is deemed to be other-than-temporary if (i) it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of a security which was not impaired at acquisition (there is an expected credit loss), or (ii) if we have the intent to sell a security in an unrealized loss position or it is more likely than not we will be required to sell a security in an unrealized loss position prior to its anticipated recovery (if any). For the purposes of performing this analysis, we assume the anticipated recovery period is until the respective security’s expected maturity. Also, for certain securities which represent “beneficial interests in securitized financial assets,” whenever there is a probable adverse change in the timing or amounts of estimated cash flows of a security from the cash flows previously projected, an other-than-temporary impairment is considered to have occurred. These securities are also analyzed for other-than-temporary impairment under the guidelines applicable to all securities as described herein. We note that primarily all of our securities, except our FNMA/FHLMC securities, fall within the definition of beneficial interests in securitized financial assets.

Temporary declines in value generally result from changes in market factors, such as market interest rates and credit spreads, or from certain macroeconomic events, including market disruptions and supply changes, which do not directly impact our ability to collect amounts contractually due. We continually evaluate the credit status of each of our securities and the collateral supporting our securities. This evaluation includes a review of the credit of the issuer of the security (if applicable), the credit rating of the security, the key terms of the security (including credit support), debt service coverage and loan to value ratios, the performance of the pool of underlying loans and the estimated value of the collateral supporting such loans, including the effect of local, industry and broader economic trends and factors. These factors include loan default expectations and loss severities, which are analyzed in connection with a particular security’s credit support, as well as prepayment rates. These factors are also analyzed in relation to the amount of the unrealized loss and the period elapsed since it was incurred. The result of this evaluation is considered when determining management’s estimate of cash flows, particularly with respect to developing the necessary inputs and assumptions. Each security is impacted by different factors and in different ways; generally the more negative factors which are identified with respect to a given security, the more likely we are to determine that we do not expect to receive all contractual payments when due with respect to that security. Significant judgment is required in this analysis.

As of December 31, 2010, we had 185 securities with a carrying amount of $564.1 million that had been downgraded during 2010 and recorded a net other-than-temporary impairment charge of $85.8 million on these securities in 2010. However, we do not depend on credit ratings in underwriting our securities, either at acquisition or on an ongoing basis. As mentioned above, a credit rating downgrade is one factor that we monitor and consider in our analysis regarding other-than-temporary impairment, but it is not determinative. Our securities generally benefit from the support of one or more subordinate classes of securities or equity or other forms of credit support. Therefore, credit rating downgrades, even to the extent they relate to an expectation that a securitization we have invested in, on an overall basis, has credit issues, may not ultimately impact cash flow estimates for the class of securities in which we are invested.

Furthermore, the analysis of whether it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell securities in an unrealized loss position prior to an expected recovery in value (if any), the amount of such expected required sales, and the projected identification of which securities would be sold is also subject to significant judgment, particularly in times of market illiquidity such as we are currently experiencing.

Revenue Recognition on Securities

Income on these securities is recognized using a level yield methodology based upon a number of cash flow assumptions that are subject to uncertainties and contingencies. Such assumptions include the rate and timing of principal and interest receipts (which may be subject to prepayments and defaults). These assumptions are updated on at least a quarterly basis to reflect changes related to a particular security, actual historical data, and market changes. These uncertainties and contingencies are difficult to predict and are subject to future events, and economic and market conditions, which may alter the assumptions. For securities acquired at a discount for credit losses, we recognize the excess of all cash flows expected over our investment in the securities as Interest Income on a “loss-adjusted” yield basis. The loss-adjusted yield is determined based on an evaluation of the credit status of securities, as described in connection with the analysis of impairment above.

Valuation of Derivatives

Similarly, our derivative instruments are carried at fair value. Fair value is based on counterparty quotations. Newcastle reports the fair value of derivative instruments gross of cash paid or received pursuant to credit support agreements and fair value is reflected on a net counterparty basis when Newcastle believes a legal right of offset exists under an enforceable netting agreement. To the extent they qualify as cash flow hedges, net unrealized gains or losses are reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income; otherwise, the net unrealized gains and losses are reported currently in income. To the extent they qualify as fair value hedges, net unrealized gains or losses on both the derivative

and the related portion of the hedged item are reported currently in income. Fair values of such derivatives are subject to significant variability based on many of the same factors as the securities discussed above, including counterparty credit risk. The results of such variability, the effectiveness of our hedging strategies and the extent to which a forecasted hedged transaction remains probable of occurring, could result in a significant increase or decrease in our GAAP equity and/or earnings.

Impairment of Loans

We own, directly and indirectly, real estate related, commercial mortgage and residential mortgage loans, including manufactured housing loans and subprime mortgage loans. To the extent that they are classified as held for investment, we must periodically evaluate each of these loans or loan pools for possible impairment. Impairment is indicated when it is deemed probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan, or, for loans acquired at a discount for credit losses, when it is deemed probable that we will be unable to collect as anticipated. Upon determination of impairment, we would establish a specific valuation allowance with a corresponding charge to earnings. We continually evaluate our loans receivable for impairment. Our residential mortgage loans, including manufacture housing loans, are aggregated into pools for evaluation based on like characteristics, such as loan type and acquisition date. Individual loans are evaluated based on an analysis of the borrower’s performance, the credit rating of the borrower, debt service coverage and loan to value ratios, the estimated value of the underlying collateral, the key terms of the loan, and the effect of local, industry and broader economic trends and factors. Pools of loans are also evaluated based on similar criteria, including historical and anticipated trends in defaults and loss severities for the type and seasoning of loans being evaluated. This information is used to estimate specific impairment charges on individual loans as well as provisions for estimated unidentified incurred losses on pools of loans. Significant judgment is required both in determining impairment and in estimating the resulting loss allowance. Furthermore, we must assess our intent and ability to hold our loan investments on a periodic basis. If we do not have the intent and ability to hold a loan for the foreseeable future or until its expected payoff, the loan must be classified as “held for sale” and recorded at the lower of cost or estimated value.

Revenue Recognition on Loans Held for Investment

Income on these loans is recognized similarly to that on our securities and is subject to similar uncertainties and contingencies, which are also analyzed on at least a quarterly basis. For loans acquired at a discount for credit losses, the net income recognized is based on a “loss adjusted yield” whereby a gross interest yield is recorded to Interest Income, offset by a provision for probable, incurred credit losses which is accrued on a periodic basis to Valuation Allowance. The provision is determined based on an evaluation of the loans as described under “Impairment of Loans” above. In the fourth quarter of 2008, we reclassified all our investments in loans as held for sale as we could no longer express the intent and ability to hold our loan investments through maturity. Subsequent to the refinancing of our Manufactured Housing Loans Portfolio I in April 2010, we have reclassified the related pool of loans as held for investment since the longer term financing gives us the ability to hold these loans until maturity. A rollforward of the allowance is included in Note 5 to our consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Revenue Recognition on Loans Held for Sale

Real estate related, commercial mortgage and residential mortgage loans that are considered held for sale are carried at the lower of amortized cost or market value determined on either an individual method basis, or in the aggregate for pools of similar loans. Interest income is recognized based on the loan’s coupon rate to the extent management believes it is collectable. Purchase discounts are not amortized as interest incurred during the period the loan is held for sale. A change in the market value of the loan, to the extent that the value is not above the cost basis, is recorded in Valuation Allowance. A rollforward of the allowance is included in Note 5 to our consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2009, the FASB issued new guidance which (i) requires disclosures about the fair value of financial instruments on an interim basis, (ii) changes the guidance for determining, recording and disclosing other-than-temporary impairment, and (iii) provides additional guidance for estimating fair value when the volume or level of activity for an asset or liability have significantly decreased. This guidance was effective for Newcastle as of April 1, 2009. It had a significant impact on our disclosures, but no material impact on our financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations upon adoption. A reclassification adjustment of $1.3 billion of loss from Accumulated Deficit to Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) was recorded at adoption but had no net effect on equity. Post-adoption impairment determinations, including the analysis performed at December 31, 2010, are performed using this new guidance and may result in materially different conclusions than would have been reached under prior guidance.

In June 2009, the FASB issued new guidance on transfers of financial assets, which eliminates the concept of qualified special purpose entities (QSPEs), changes the requirements for reporting a transfer of a portion of financial assets as a sale, clarifies other sale accounting criteria and changes the initial measurement of a transferor’s interest in transferred financial assets. Furthermore, it requires additional disclosures. This guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2009. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

In June 2009, the FASB issued new guidance which changes the definition of a variable interest entity (“VIE”) and changes the methodology to determine who is the primary beneficiary of, or in other words who consolidates, a VIE. Furthermore, it eliminates the scope exception for qualified special purpose entities (QSPEs), which are now subject to the VIE consolidation rules. This guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2009. Generally, the changes are expected to cause more entities to be defined as VIEs and to require consolidation by the entity that exercises day-to-day control over a VIE, such as servicers and collateral managers. As discussed under “Variable Interest Entities” above, this guidance resulted in changes in our consolidated entities. Changes to consolidation conclusions impact, potentially materially, our gross assets, liabilities, equity, revenues and expenses but are not material to the net income applicable to our common stockholders.

The FASB has recently issued or discussed a number of proposed standards on such topics as consolidation, financial statement presentation, revenue recognition, leases, financial instruments, hedging, contingencies and fair value. Some of the proposed changes are significant and could have a material impact on Newcastle’s reporting. Newcastle has not yet fully evaluated the potential impact of these proposals, but will make such an evaluation as the standards are finalized.

Results of Operations

The following table summarizes the changes in our results of operations from year-to-year (dollars in thousands):

Comparison of Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009


	Year Ended December 31,				Increase (Decrease)
	2010		2009		Amount		%
Interest income	$	300,272	$	361,866	$	(61,594)		(17.0%)
Interest expense		172,219		218,410		(46,191)		(21.1%)

Net interest income		128,053		143,456		(15,403)		(10.7%)


Impairment
Valuation allowance (reversal) on loans		(339,887)		15,007		(354,894)		N.M
Other-than-temporary impairment on securities, net		99,029		533,533		(434,504)		N.M

		(240,858)		548,540		(789,398)		N.M


Net interest income (loss) after impairment		368,911		(405,084)		773,995		N.M

Other Income (Loss)
Gain (loss) on settlement of investments, net		52,307		11,438		40,869		357.3%
Gain on extinguishment of debt		265,656		215,279		50,377		23.4%
Other income (loss), net		(35,676)		682		(36,358)		N.M

		282,287		227,399		54,888		24.1%


Expenses
Loan and security servicing expense		4,580		5,034		(454)		(9.0%)
General and administrative expense		7,696		8,899		(1,203)		(13.5%)
Management fee to affiliate		17,252		17,968		(716)		(4.0%)

		29,528		31,901		(2,373)		(7.4%)



Income (loss) from continuing operations	$	621,670	$	(209,586)	$	831,256		396.6%

N.M. - Not meaningful

Interest Income

Interest income decreased by $61.6 million primarily due to (i) a $23.1 million decrease as a result of the deconsolidation of CDO VII, (ii) a $2.2 million decrease as a result of the disposition of securities and loans, (iii) a $5.1 million decrease due to paydowns of existing securities and loans, (iv) a $1.0 million decrease in the amount of prepayment penalties we received as a result of the prepayment of securities and loans, and (v) a $40.9 million decrease due to the accretion of discounts on securities impaired due to non-credit factors recognized as interest income in the first quarter of 2009. Up until March 31, 2009, GAAP required us to record impairments to write down debt securities to their fair value, rather than just the portion related to expected credit losses. As a result, we recorded a significant amount of impairments due to non-credit factors prior to 2009. Therefore, the portion of non-credit impairment, which we expected to recover, contributed to a significant amount of interest income being recorded through the accretion of discount in the first quarter of 2009. However, upon the adoption of revised impairment guidance issued by the FASB effective April 1, 2009, we no longer had to record impairment due to non-credit factors and therefore no longer recorded this significant increase in accretion income after the first quarter of 2009. The decreases described in items (i) through (v) above were partially offset by a $10.7million net increase as a result of new investments made offset by interest rate changes.

Interest Expense

Interest expense decreased by $46.2 million primarily due to (i) a $3.3 million decrease as a result of the repayment of repurchase agreements in connection with the disposition or repayment of certain securities and loans and a $6.7 million decrease in connection with the repurchase or paydown of CDO debt obligations, (ii) an $18.5 million decrease as a result of the deconsolidation of CDO VII, (iii) a $3.1 million decrease due to the repayment of debt resulting from paydowns of existing securities and loans, (iv) a $4.3 million decrease in the interest expense incurred on our junior subordinated notes due to the modification and exchanges effected in April 2009 and January 2010, (v) a $5.3 million decrease due to changes in the amortization of a deferred hedge loss and (vi) a $5.1 million net decrease, which was primarily due to changes in interest rates.

Valuation Allowance on Loans

The valuation allowance on loans decreased by $354.9 million primarily due to improved market conditions, certain successful loan restructurings and the sales of loans at prices substantially above their carrying value, resulting in a larger net reversal of valuation allowances on loans during the year ended December 31, 2010.

Other-than-temporary Impairment on Securities, Net

The other-than-temporary impairment on securities decreased by $434.5 million primarily due to improved market conditions.

Gain (Loss) on Settlement of Investments, Net

The net gain on settlement of investments increased by $40.9 as a result of the increased volume of sales and repayments of investments at a gain and the lower volume of sales of certain securities and loans at a loss due to liquidity reasons in the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to the year ended December 31, 2009.

Gain (Loss) on Extinguishment of Debt

The net gain on extinguishment of debt increased by $50.4 million primarily due to the significantly higher amounts of debt repurchased (although at lower discounts to our basis, such discounts are based on market conditions as well as the level within the capital structure we are repurchasing) in the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to the year ended December 31, 2009.

Other Income (Loss), Net

Other income decreased by $36.4 million primarily due to (i) a $20.6 million increase in unrealized loss recognized on derivative instruments for which the hedged items were no longer probable of occurring (ii) a $16.7 million decrease in fair value of certain non-hedge derivative instruments, offset by (iii) a $0.9 million increase in miscellaneous fee income.

Loan and Security Servicing Expense

Loan and security servicing expense has remained relatively stable during the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to the year ended December 31, 2009.

General and Administrative Expense

General and administrative expense decreased by $1.2 million primarily due to a decrease in legal and professional expenses.

Management Fee to Affiliate

Management fees decreased by $0.7 million primarily due to a reduction in gross equity (as defined in the management agreement) as a result of the exchange of preferred stock in the first quarter of 2010.

Comparison of Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008


	Year Ended December 31,				Increase (Decrease)
	2009		2008		Amount		%
Interest income	$	361,866	$	468,867	$	(107,001)		(22.8%)
Interest expense		218,410		307,303		(88,893)		(28.9%)

Net interest income		143,456		161,564		(18,108)		(11.2%)


Impairment
Valuation allowance on loans		15,007		994,134		(979,127)		N.M
Other-than-temporary impairment on securities, net		533,533		1,997,696		(1,464,163)		N.M

		548,540		2,991,830		(2,443,290)		N.M

Net interest income (loss) after impairment		(405,084)		(2,830,266)		2,425,182		N.M

Other Income (Loss)
Gain (loss) on settlement of investments, net		11,438		(58,668)		70,106		119.5%
Gain on extinguishment of debt		215,279		13,824		201,455		N.M
Other income (loss), net		682		(67,965)		68,647		N.M

		227,399		(112,809)		340,208		301.6%


Expenses
Loan and security servicing expense		5,034		6,649		(1,615)		(24.3%)
General and administrative expense		8,899		7,586		1,313		17.3%
Management fee to affiliate		17,968		18,388		(420)		(2.3%)

		31,901		32,623		(722)		(2.2%)



Income (loss) from continuing operations	$	(209,586)	$	(2,975,698)	$	2,766,112		93.0%

Interest Income

Interest income decreased by $107 million primarily due to (i) a $33.5 million decrease as a result of the disposition of certain assets and a $4.0 million decrease in connection with the disposition of assets to repay one of our CDO debt obligations, (ii) a $22.3 million decrease due to paydowns of existing securities and loans, (iii) a $55.4 million net decrease, which was primarily due to changes in interest rates, although this decrease was partially offset by increased interest income as a result of the accretion of discounts on impaired securities. The decreases described in items (i) through (iii) above were partially offset by an $8.2 million increase in the amount of prepayment penalties we received as a result of the early prepayment of securities and loans.

Interest Expense

Interest expense decreased by $88.9 million primarily due to (i) a $20.7 million decrease as a result of the repayment of repurchase agreements in connection with the disposition of certain assets and a $9.9 million decrease in connection with the repayment of certain CDO debt obligations or the repurchase of debt, (iii) a $12.8 million decrease due to repayment of debt resulting from paydowns of existing securities and loans, (iv) a $57.9 million net decrease, which was primarily due to changes in interest rates. The decreases described in items (i) through (iii) above were partially offset by an $11.6 million increase as a result of the amortization of a deferred hedge loss.

Valuation Allowance on Loans

The valuation allowance on loans decreased by $979.1 million as the net decline in fair value of loans was only $15.0 million in 2009, compared to a valuation allowance of $994.1 million we recorded in 2008 as a result of the reclassification of all loans from the “held for investment” category to the “held for sale” category as of December 31, 2008.

Other-than-temporary Impairment on Securities, Net

The other-than-temporary impairment on securities decreased by $1.5 billion in 2009. We continued to record a significant amount of other-than-temporary impairment as a result of the ongoing global credit crisis, but the amount recorded in 2009 was significantly less than the amount recorded in 2008 due to the significant impairment we recorded in the fourth quarter of 2008 when we determined that we were not able to express the intent and ability to hold our securities through maturity or recovery.

Gain (Loss) on Settlement of Investments, Net

The net gain on settlement of investments increased by $70.1 million primarily due to investments, which had previously been written down through impairments or allowances, being repaid at par.

Gain (Loss) on Extinguishment of Debt

The gain on extinguishment of debt increased by $201.5 million primarily due to the significantly higher amount of debt repurchased (and at a higher discount) in 2009 compared to 2008.

Other Income (Loss), Net

Other income recorded was not significant in 2009. The net increase of $68.6 million is primarily due to the significant loss recorded in 2008 as a result of the termination of total rate of return swaps at losses and losses on non-hedge derivatives.

Loan and Security Servicing Expense

Loan and security servicing expense decreased by $1.6 million primarily due to the principal pay down of our residential and manufactured housing mortgage loan portfolios.

General and Administrative Expense

General and administrative expense increased by $1.3 million primarily due to increases in legal fees and other professional fees in connection with our debt restructurings.

Management Fee to Affiliate

Management fees decreased by $0.4 million primarily due to a reduction in gross equity (as defined in the management agreement) as a result of the return of capital distributions made in 2008.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Overview

Liquidity is a measurement of our ability to meet potential cash requirements, including ongoing commitments to repay borrowings, fund and maintain investments, and other general business needs. Additionally, to maintain our status as a REIT under the Code, we must distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income. We note that we believe we have already met this requirement through 2010 and that up to 90% of this requirement may be met in future years through stock dividends, rather than cash, subject to limitations based on the value of our stock. Our primary sources of funds for liquidity consist of net cash provided by operating activities, sales or repayments of investments, potential refinancing of existing debt, and the issuance of equity securities, when feasible. Our debt obligations are generally secured directly by our investment assets, except for the junior subordinated notes payable.

Sources of Liquidity and Uses of Capital

As of the date of this filing, we have sufficient liquid assets to satisfy all of our recourse liabilities other than our junior subordinated notes payable, which are long-term obligations. With respect to the next twelve months, we expect that our

cash on hand combined with our cash flow provided by operations will be sufficient to satisfy our anticipated liquidity needs with respect to our current investment portfolio, including related financings, hedging activity, potential margin calls and operating expenses. While it is inherently more difficult to forecast beyond the next twelve months, we currently expect to meet our long-term liquidity requirements, specifically the repayment of our recourse debt obligations, through our cash on hand and, if needed, additional borrowings, proceeds received from repurchase agreements and similar financings, and the liquidation or refinancing of our assets.

These short-term and long-term expectations are forward-looking and subject to a number of uncertainties and assumptions, which are described below under “–Factors That Could Impact Our Liquidity” as well as Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors.” If our assumptions about our liquidity prove to be incorrect, we could be subject to a shortfall in liquidity in the future, and this short-fall may occur rapidly and with little or no notice, which would limit our ability to address the shortfall on a timely basis.

Cash flow provided by operations constitutes a critical component of our liquidity. Essentially, our cash flow provided by operations is equal to (i) the net cash flow from our CDOs that have not failed their over collateralization or interest coverage tests, plus (ii) the net cash flow from our non-CDO investments that are not subject to mandatory debt repayment, including principal and sales proceeds, less (iii) operating expenses (primarily management fees, professional fees and insurance), and less (iv) interest on the junior subordinated notes payable.

Our cash flow provided by operations differs from our net income (loss) due to these primary factors: (i) accretion of discount or premium on our real estate securities and loans (including the accrual of interest and fees payable at maturity), discount on our debt obligations, deferred financing costs, and deferred hedge gains and losses, (ii) gains and losses from sales of assets financed with CDOs, (iii) the valuation allowance recorded in connection with our loan assets, as well as other-than-temporary impairment on our securities, (iv) unrealized gains or losses on our non-hedge derivatives, (v) the non-cash charges associated with our early extinguishment of debt, and (vi) net income (loss) generated within CDOs that have failed their over collateralization or interest coverage tests. Proceeds from the sale of assets which serve as collateral for our CDO financings, including gains thereon, are required to be retained in the CDO structure until the related bonds are retired and are, therefore, not available to fund current cash needs outside of these structures.

Update Liquidity, Capital Resources and Capital Obligations

Certain details regarding our liquidity, current financings and capital obligations as of February 25, 2011 are set forth below:

—

Cash – We had a total of $250.6 million of cash, comprised of unrestricted cash of $57.9 million and $192.7 million of restricted cash held for reinvestment in our CDOs;

—

Margin Exposure and Recourse Financings – We have margin exposure on a $17.2 million repurchase agreement related to the financing of the Newcastle Class I-MM notes (of which only $4.3 million is recourse) and a $63.0 million repurchase agreement related to the financing of FNMA/FHLMC securities.

The following table compares our recourse financings excluding the junior subordinated notes:


Recourse Financings	February 25, 2011		December 31, 2010
CDO Securities	$	4,288	$	4,683

Non-FNMA/FHLMC recourse financings		4,288		4,683
FNMA/FHLMC securities		63,029		-

Total recourse financings	$	67,317	$	4,683

The non-FNMA/FHLMC recourse financings and the FNMA/FHLMC recourse financing will mature in December 2011 and May 2011, respectively.

It is important for readers to understand that our liquidity, available capital resources and capital obligations could change rapidly due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Set forth below is a discussion of some of the factors that could impact our liquidity, available capital resources and capital obligations.

Factors That Could Impact Our Liquidity, Capital Resources and Capital Obligations

We refer readers to our discussions in other sections of this report for the following information:

—

For a further discussion of recent trends and events affecting our liquidity, see “– Market Considerations” above;

—

As described above, under “– Update on Liquidity, Capital Resources and Capital Obligations,” we are subject to margin calls in connection with our repurchase agreements;

—

Our match funded investments are financed long term, and their credit status is continuously monitored, which is described under “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk — Interest Rate Exposure” below.

Our remaining investments, generally financed with short term debt or short term repurchase agreements, are also subject to refinancing risk upon the maturity of the related debt. See “Debt Obligations” below; and

—

For a further discussion of a number of risks that could affect our liquidity, access to capital resources and our capital obligations, see Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” above.

In addition to the information referenced above, the following factors could also affect our liquidity, access to capital resources and our capital obligations. As such, if their outcomes do not fall within our expectations, changes in these factors could negatively affect our liquidity.

—

Access to Financing from Counterparties – Decisions by investors, counterparties and lenders to enter into transactions with us will depend upon a number of factors, such as our historical and projected financial performance, compliance with the terms of our current credit and derivative arrangements, industry and market trends, the availability of capital and our investors’, counterparties’ and lenders’ policies and rates applicable thereto, and the relative attractiveness of alternative investment or lending opportunities. Recent conditions and events have limited the array of capital resources available to us and made the terms of capital resources we are able to obtain generally less favorable to us relative to the terms we were able to obtain prior to the onset of challenging conditions. Our core business strategy is dependent upon our ability to finance our real estate securities, loans and other real estate related assets with match funded debt at rates that provide a positive net spread. Currently, spreads for such liabilities have widened relative to historical levels and demand for such liabilities remains lower than the demand prior to the onset of challenging market conditions.

—

Impact of Rating Downgrades on CDO Cash Flows – Ratings downgrades of assets in our CDOs can negatively impact compliance with the CDOs’ over collateralization tests. Generally, the over collateralization test measures the principal balance of the specified pool of assets in a CDO against the corresponding liabilities issued by the CDO. However, based on ratings downgrades, the principal balance of an asset or of a specified percentage of assets in a CDO may be deemed to be reduced below their current balance to levels set forth in the related CDO documents for purposes of calculating the over collateralization test. As a result, ratings downgrades can reduce the assumed principal balance of the assets used in the over collateralization test relative to the corresponding liabilities in the test, thereby reducing the over collateralization percentage. In addition, actual defaults of assets would also negatively impact compliance with the over collateralization tests. Failure to satisfy an over collateralization test could result in the redirection of cashflows, or, in certain cases, in the potential removal of Newcastle as collateral manager of the affected CDO. See “Debt Obligations” below for a summary of assets on negative watch for possible downgrade in our CDOs.

—

Impact of Expected Repayment or Forecasted Sale on Cash Flows – The timing of and proceeds from the repayment or sale of certain investments may be different than expected or may not occur as expected. Proceeds from sales of assets in the current illiquid market environment are unpredictable and may vary materially from their estimated fair value and their carrying value.

Investment Portfolio

Our investment portfolio as of December 31, 2010 is detailed in Part I, Item 1, “Business – Our Investment Strategy.”

Debt Obligations

Our debt obligations, as summarized in Note 8 to Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,” existing at December 31, 2010 (gross of $3.6 million of discounts) had contractual maturities as follows (unaudited) (in thousands):


	Nonrecourse		Recourse		Total
2011	$	186,021	$	4,683	$	190,704
2012		-		-		-
2013		-		-		-
2014		-		-		-
2015		-		-		-
Thereafter		3,507,676		51,004		3,558,680

Total	$	3,693,697	$	55,687	$	3,749,384

Certain of the debt obligations included above are obligations of our consolidated subsidiaries which own the related collateral. In some cases, including the CDO and Other Bonds Payable, such collateral is not available to other creditors of ours.

The following table provides additional information regarding short-term borrowings. These short-term borrowings were used to finance certain of our investments in real estate securities and loans, including FNMA/FHLMC securities, and our investments in manufactured housing loans. During the year ended December 31, 2010, we repaid all previously

outstanding repurchase agreements and other short-term borrowings. In December 2010, we entered into a new repurchase facility of $19 million to finance the purchase of certain notes issued by Newcastle CDO VI. The new repurchase agreement has recourse to Newcastle up to twenty-five percent of the then-outstanding balance of the repurchase facility, which was approximately $4.7 million as of December 31, 2010.


			Year Ended December 31, 2010
	Outstanding Balance at December 31, 2010		Average Daily Amount Outstanding		Maximum Amount Outstanding		Weighted Average Interest Rate
Repurchase agreements	$	18,732	$	16,365	$	71,309	LIBOR+1.14%
Short-term other bonds payable	$	-	$	3,091	$	10,246	LIBOR+2.75%

Our non-CDO obligations contain various customary loan covenants. We were in compliance with all of the covenants in our non-CDO financings as of December 31, 2010.

In March 2006, we acquired a portfolio of subprime mortgage loans (“Subprime Portfolio I”) for $1.50 billion. In April 2006, Newcastle Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-1 (“Securitization Trust 2006”) closed on a securitization of Subprime Portfolio I. We do not consolidate Securitization Trust 2006. We sold Subprime Portfolio I to Securitization Trust 2006, which issued $1.45 billion of notes with a stated maturity of March 2036. We, as holder of the equity of Securitization Trust 2006, have the option to redeem the notes once the aggregate principal balance of Subprime Portfolio I is equal to or less than 20% of such balance at the date of the transfer. The transaction between us and Securitization Trust 2006 qualified as a sale for accounting purposes. However, 20% of the loans which are subject to a call option by us were not treated as being sold. Following the securitization, we held the following interests in Subprime Portfolio I: (i) the equity of Securitization Trust 2006, (ii) the retained notes, and (iii) subprime mortgage loans subject to call option and related financing in the amount of 100% of such loans (we note that this interest is non-economic if we do not exercise the option, meaning that it has no impact on us).

In March 2007, we entered into an agreement to acquire a portfolio of subprime mortgage loans (“Subprime Portfolio II”) with up to $1.7 billion of unpaid principal balance. In July 2007, Newcastle Mortgage Securities Trust 2007-1 (“Securitization Trust 2007”) closed on a securitization of Subprime Portfolio II. As a result of the repurchase of delinquent loans by the seller, as well as borrower repayments, the unpaid principal balance of the portfolio upon securitization was $1.1 billion. We do not consolidate Securitization Trust 2007. We sold Subprime Portfolio II to Securitization Trust 2007, which issued $1.0 billion of notes with a stated maturity of April 2037. We, as holder of the equity of Securitization Trust 2007, have the option to redeem the notes once the aggregate principal balance of Subprime Portfolio II is equal to or less than 10% of such balance at the date of the transfer. The transaction between us and Securitization Trust 2007 qualified as a sale for accounting purposes. However, 10% of the loans which are subject to a call option by us were not treated as being sold. Following the securitization, we held the following interests in Subprime Portfolio II: (i) the equity of Securitization Trust 2007, (ii) the retained notes, and (iii) subprime mortgage loans subject to call option and related financing in the amount of 100% of such loans (we note that this interest is non-economic, meaning that if we do not exercise the option it has no impact on us).

We have no obligation to repurchase any loans from either of our subprime securitizations. Therefore, it is expected that our exposure to loss is limited to the carrying amount of our retained interests in the securitization entities, as described above. A subsidiary of Newcastle gave limited representations and warranties with respect to Subprime Portfolio II; however, it has no assets and does not have recourse to the assets of Newcastle.

During 2010, we repurchased $483.7 million face amount of CDO bonds for $215.8 million and recorded a gain of $265.7 million. During 2009, we repurchased $246.7 million face amount of CDO bonds f