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, 2011

—	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.)
				(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).

X 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, 2011 (computed based on the closing price on such date as reported on the NYSE) was: $434 million.

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock was 105,181,009 as of February 29, 2012.

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 take advantage of investment opportunities in interests in excess mortgage servicing rights;

—

our ability to deploy capital accretively;

—

the risks that default and recovery rates on our real estate securities and loan portfolios deteriorate compared to 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 to one 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 “Business – Corporate Governance and Internet Address; 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		36

Item 2.	Properties		36

Item 3.	Legal Proceedings		36

Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures		36

	PART II

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities		37

Item 6.	Selected Financial Data		38

Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		41

Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		70

Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data		73

	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		74

	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Internal Control over Financial Reporting		75

	Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2011 and 2010		76

	Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009		77

	Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009		78

	Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit) for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009		79

	Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009		80

	Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements		82

Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure		127

Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures		127

	Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting		127

Item 9B.	Other Information		128

	PART III

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance		128

Item 11.	Executive Compensation		133

Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters		138

Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence		139

Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services		141

	PART IV

Item 15.	Exhibits; Financial Statement Schedules		142

	Signatures		144

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, excess mortgage servicing rights (“excess MSRs”) 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 (“non-recourse CDOs”), (ii) unlevered investments in deconsolidated Newcastle CDO debt (“unlevered CDOs”), (iii) unlevered excess MSRs, (iv) investments financed with other non-recourse debt (“non-recourse other”), (v) investments and debt repurchases financed with recourse debt (“recourse”), (vi) other unlevered investments (“unlevered other”) and (vii) corporate. In the fourth quarter of 2011, Newcastle changed the composition of its reportable segments such that the unlevered segment is further broken down into (i) unlevered CDOs, (ii) unlevered excess MSRs and (iii) unlevered other. Accordingly, segment information for previously reported periods has been restated to reflect the new composition of reportable segments. 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, 2011:


	Non-Recourse CDOs (A)			Unlevered CDOs (B)		Unlevered Excess MSRs			Non- Recourse Other (A)(C)			Recourse (D)			Unlevered Other (E)			Corporate			Inter-segment Elimination (F)			Total
GAAP
Investments	$	2,408,252		$	3,940	$	43,971		$	783,777		$	244,916		$	18,751		$	-		$	(143,018	)	$	3,360,589
Cash and restricted cash		105,040			-		-			-			-			9			157,347			-			262,396
Derivative assets		1,954			-		-			-			-			-			-			-			1,954
Other assets		23,203			8		-			116			593			2,085			1,208			(353	)		26,860

Total assets		2,538,449			3,948		43,971			783,893			245,509			20,845			158,555			(143,371	)		3,651,799

Debt		(2,410,151	)		-		-			(748,118	)		(233,194	)		-			(51,248	)		143,018			(3,299,693	)
Derivative liabilities		(119,320	)		-		-			-			-			-			-			-			(119,320	)
Other liabilities		(12,705	)		-		(4,186	)		(3,407	)		(23	)		(49	)		(20,680	)		353			(40,697	)

Total liabilities		(2,542,176	)		-		(4,186	)		(751,525	)		(233,217	)		(49	)		(71,928	)		143,371			(3,459,710	)

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


GAAP book value	$	(3,727	)	$	3,948	$	39,785		$	32,368		$	12,292		$	20,796		$	25,044		$	-		$	130,506

(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, creditors or beneficial interest holders of these structures have no recourse to the general credit of Newcastle. Therefore, our exposure to the economic losses from such structures is limited to 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)

Represents unlevered investments in CDO securities issued by Newcastle. These CDOs have been deconsolidated as we do not have the power to direct the relevant activities of the CDOs.

(C)

The following table summarizes the investments and debt in the other non-recourse segment:


	December 31, 2011
	Investments				Debt
	Outstanding Face Amount		Carrying Value		Outstanding Face Amount*		Carrying Value*
Manufactured housing loan portfolio I	$	135,209	$	112,316	$	107,032	$	97,631
Manufactured housing loan portfolio II		178,603		175,120		143,869		142,589
Residential mortgage loans		56,377		40,380		54,842		53,771
Subprime mortgage loans subject to call options		406,217		404,723		406,217		404,723
Real estate securities		67,965		43,497		47,697		43,404
Operating real estate		N/A		7,741		6,000		6,000

	$	844,371	$	783,777	$	765,657	$	748,118

An aggregate face amount of $157.0 million (carrying value of $143.0 million) of debt represents financing provided by the CDO segment (and included as investments in the CDO segment), which is eliminated upon consolidation.

(D)

The $233.2 million of recourse debt is comprised of (i) $231.0 million of repurchase agreements secured by $244.9 million carrying amount of FNMA/FHLMC securities and (ii) $2.2 million of repurchase agreements secured by $29.1 million face amount of senior notes issued by Newcastle CDO VI, which was repurchased by Newcastle in December 2010 and eliminated in consolidation.

(E)

The following table summarizes the investments in the unlevered other segment as of December 31, 2011:


	Outstanding Face Amount		Carrying Value		Number of Investments
Real estate securities	$	183,507	$	7,614		25
Real estate related loans		24,543		6,366		1
Residential mortgage loans		5,227		2,687		170
Other investments		N/A		6,024		1

	$	213,277	$	22,691		197

(F)

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

Our investments currently cover the following 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, 2011, our real estate securities represented 47.4% 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, 2011, our real estate related loans represented 22.3% of our assets.

3) Residential Mortgage Loans:		We acquire residential mortgage loans, including manufactured housing loans and subprime mortgage loans. As of December 31, 2011, our residential mortgage loans represented 9.1% of our assets.

4) Operating Real Estate:		We acquire and manage direct and indirect interests in operating real estate. As of December 31, 2011, our operating real estate represented 0.9% of our assets.

5) Excess Mortgage Servicing Rights:		We made our first investment in excess MSRs in December 2011. As of December 31, 2011, our interests in these rights represented 1.2% of our assets.

In addition, Newcastle had restricted and unrestricted cash and other miscellaneous net assets, which represented 19.1% of our assets at December 31, 2011.

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 4.8 million shares of our common stock and Fortress, through its affiliates, had options to purchase an additional 6.0 million shares of our common stock, which were issued in connection with our equity offerings, representing approximately 9.7% of our common stock on a fully diluted basis, as of December 31, 2011.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, Newcastle actively pursued opportunities to raise capital and make new investments at attractive yields.

Highlighted below are the significant transactions executed during the year.

•

In February 2011, Newcastle, through one of its subsidiaries, purchased the management rights with respect to certain C-BASS Investment Management LLC (“C-BASS”) CDOs pursuant to a bankruptcy proceeding for $2.2 million. As a result, Newcastle became the collateral manager of certain CDOs previously managed by C-BASS and

will earn, on average, a 20 basis point annual senior management fee on a portion of the total collateral, which was $1.3 billion at acquisition.

•

In March 2011, Newcastle issued 17,250,000 shares of its common stock in a public offering at a price to the public of $6.00 per share for net proceeds of approximately $98.4 million. In September 2011, Newcastle issued 25,875,000 shares of its common stock in a public offering at a price to the public of $4.55 per share for net proceeds of approximately $112.3 million.

•

In May 2011, we completed a securitization transaction to refinance approximately $197 million outstanding principal balance of manufactured housing loans. We issued approximately $160 million aggregate principal amount of asset-backed notes, of which $143 million was sold to third parties and $17 million was sold to certain CDOs managed and consolidated by us. In addition, we retained the below investment grade notes and residual interest, and invested approximately $20 million of unrestricted cash in the new securitization structure. The gross proceeds received from the issuance of the notes were used to repay the previously existing financing on this portfolio in full, terminate the related interest rate swap contracts and pay the related transaction costs.

•

In December 2011, we made our first investment in excess MSRs. We invested $44 million to acquire a 65% interest in the excess MSRs of a $9.9 billion residential mortgage portfolio. Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”), a leading residential mortgage servicer that is externally managed by our manager, is the servicer of the loans and invested alongside Newcastle by acquiring the remaining 35% interest in the excess MSRs. To the extent any loans in this portfolio are refinanced by Nationstar, subject to certain limitations, we are entitled to receive our pro rata share of the excess MSRs of the refinanced loans. Newcastle will not have any servicing duties, advance obligations or liabilities associated with the portfolio.

•

As a result of the improvement in our financial condition and liquidity, the Board of Directors reinstated the quarterly dividend on our common stock beginning in the second quarter of 2011, and declared aggregate common stock dividends of $0.40 per share, or $39.5 million, for the year ended December 31, 2011.

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.

The following summarizes our consolidated investment portfolio at December 31, 2011 (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)
I. Real Estate Related Investments
Commercial
CMBS	$	1,546	$	1,124		38.2%	$	1,129		204	BB+		4.1
Mezzanine Loans		609		469		15.9%		469		17	73%		2.4
B-Notes		174		153		5.2%		153		5	61%		2.8
Whole Loans		31		31		1.0%		31		3	48%		1.9
CDO Securities (4)		88		68		2.3%		56		3	BB+		3.5
Other Investments (5)		25		25		0.8%		25		1	-		-

Total Commercial Assets		2,473		1,870		63.4%		1,863					3.5


Residential
Manufactured Housing and Residential		379		328		11.1%		328		10,045	704		6.6
Subprime Securities		246		123		4.2%		129		63	B		6.9
Real Estate ABS		53		40		1.4%		38		14	BBB-		7.2

		678		491		16.7%		495					6.7


FNMA/FHLMC securities		232		243		8.3%		245		31	AAA		4.6

Total Residential Assets		910		734		25.0%		740					6.2


Corporate
REIT Debt		137		136		4.6%		135		20	BB+		2.4
Corporate Bank Loans		283		161		5.5%		161		6	CC		3.0

Total Corporate Assets		420		297		10.1%		296					2.8

II. Excess Mortgage Servicing Rights		44		44		1.5%		44		1	-		6.0


TOTAL / WA	$	3,847	$	2,945		100.0%	$	2,943					4.1

Reconciliation to GAAP total assets:
Other assets
Subprime mortgage loans subject to call option (6)								405
Real estate held for sale								8
Cash and restricted cash								262
Other								34

GAAP total assets							$	3,652

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 at any time.

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

⁽⁴⁾	Represents non-consolidated CDO securities, excluding ten securities with a zero value, which had an aggregate face amount of $118 million.

⁽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 Total Amortized Cost Basis		Carrying Value		Delinquency 60+/FC/REO (C)		Principal Subordination (D)		Weighted Average Life (years) (E)
Pre 2004	BB+		60	$	301,373	$	283,342		25.2%	$	263,447		7.3%		14.4%		1.5
2004	BB+		31		143,831		113,231		10.1%		105,349		2.3%		7.7%		3.4
2005	BB+		29		317,865		192,387		17.1%		219,565		5.2%		8.5%		3.6
2006	BB		44		409,417		281,889		25.1%		275,951		8.1%		11.8%		3.8
2007	B-		16		121,638		35,266		3.1%		52,362		16.2%		10.9%		4.3
2010	BB+		4		46,798		43,499		3.9%		42,129		0.0%		3.5%		8.8
2011	BBB		20		204,955		174,832		15.5%		170,015		0.0%		7.2%		8.5

Total / WA	BB+		204	$	1,545,877	$	1,124,446		100.0%	$	1,128,818		6.1%		10.3%		4.1

(A)

The year in which the securities were 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 at any time. We had $2.3 million of CMBS assets that were on negative watch for possible downgrade by at least one rating agency as of December 31, 2011.

(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.

CDO Securities (A)


Collateral Manager	Primary Collateral Type	Number		Average Minimum Rating (B)	Outstanding Face Amount		Amortized Cost Basis		Percentage of Total Amortized Cost Basis		Carrying Value		Principal Subordination (C)
Third Party	CMBS		1	BBB-	$	77,027	$	60,801		89.9%	$	49,296		51.7%
Newcastle	CMBS		1	BBB-		5,502		4,224		6.2%		3,940		29.5%
Newcastle	ABS		1	CC		5,500		2,600		3.9%		2,750		49.1%

TOTAL/WA			3	BB+	$	88,029	$	67,625		100.0%	$	55,986		50.2%

(A)

Represents non-consolidated CDO securities, excluding ten securities with a zero value, which had an aggregate face amount of $118 million.

(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 at any time.

(C)

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

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	$	609,117	$	469,326		71.9%	$	469,326		60.8%		73.2%		2.0%
B-Notes		5		174,153		152,535		23.4%		152,535		50.5%		60.7%		31.2%
Whole Loans		3		30,566		30,566		4.7%		30,566		0.0%		48.2%		0.0%

Total/WA		25	$	813,836	$	652,427		100.0%	$	652,427		56.3%		69.6%		8.2%

(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 (years)		Original Balance		Delinquency 90+/FC/ REO (B)		Cumulative Loss to Date
Manufactured Housing
Loans Portfolio I		702	$	135,977	$	110,528		33.6%	$	110,528		10.2	$	327,855		1.5%		7.9%
Manufactured Housing
Loans Portfolio II		702		183,062		174,331		53.1%		174,331		12.6		434,743		1.7%		6.2%
Residential Loans Portfolio I		714		56,377		40,270		12.3%		40,270		8.7		646,357		12.1%		0.4%
Residential Loans Portfolio II		737		3,779		3,415		1.0%		3,415		7.3		83,950		0.0%		0.0%

Total / WA		704	$	379,195	$	328,544		100.0%	$	328,544		11.1	$	1,492,905		3.2%		5.9%

(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-		14	$	14,063	$	6,805		5.5%	$	8,116		24.7%		4.2%
2004	BB-		9		34,567		16,483		13.4%		18,117		25.2%		3.7%
2005	B-		26		108,265		41,463		33.7%		42,840		32.1%		4.4%
2006	B+		7		57,794		38,588		31.4%		38,626		41.0%		5.4%
2007 and later	CCC		7		31,325		19,684		16.0%		20,923		29.7%		3.5%

Total / WA	B		63	$	246,014	$	123,023		100.0%	$	128,622		32.5%		4.4%


	Collateral Characteristics
Vintage (B)	Average Loan Age (years)		Collateral Factor (F)		3 month CPR (G)		Delinquency (H)		Cumulative Losses to Date
2003		9.0		0.09		6.2%		18.1%		4.1%
2004		7.6		0.14		9.1%		17.5%		4.1%
2005		6.6		0.18		10.9%		28.1%		11.1%
2006		5.8		0.31		12.7%		24.3%		18.6%
2007 and later		5.3		0.47		10.2%		22.9%		21.1%


Total / WA		6.5		0.24		10.7%		24.5%		12.8%

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	$	30,232	$	29,454		73.8	%	$	30,547		41.6	%		1.5	%
Small Business Loans	BB+		7		23,115		10,465		26.2	%		7,560		21.9	%		0.8	%

Total / WA	BBB-		14	$	53,347	$	39,919		100.0	%	$	38,107		33.1	%		1.2	%


	Collateral Characteristics
Asset Type	Average Loan Age (months)		Collateral Factor ^(F)		3 Month CPR ^(G)			Delinquency ^(H)			Cumulative Losses to Date
Manufactured Housing		12.2		0.25		6.3	%		2.3	%		13.4	%
Small Business Loans		6.8		0.50		5.9	%		21.6	%		17.3	%

Total / WA		9.9		0.36		6.1	%		10.6	%		15.1	%

(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 at any time. We had approximately $25.1 million of ABS securities that were on negative watch for possible downgrade by at least one rating agency as of December 31, 2011.

(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	A-		4	$	34,525	$	33,712		24.8%	$	36,406
Diversified	CCC+		4		39,286		38,502		28.3%		32,866
Office	BBB		6		34,117		34,413		25.3%		34,750
Multifamily	BBB		3		12,765		12,794		9.4%		13,429
Healthcare	BBB-		3		16,700		16,510		12.2%		17,845

Total / WA	BB+		20	$	137,393	$	135,931		100.0%	$	135,296

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	NR		1	$	17,811	$	15,139		9.4%	$	15,139
Media	CCC-		2		110,710		25,222		15.7%		25,222
Resorts	NR		1		136,156		106,156		65.9%		106,156
Restaurant	B		2		18,101		14,636		9.0%		14,636

Total / WA	CC		6	$	282,778	$	161,153		100.0%	$	161,153

(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 at any time. We had $27.9 million of REIT debt and no corporate bank loans that were on negative watch for possible downgrade by at least one rating agency as of December 31, 2011.

Excess MSRs

Collateral Characteristics:


	Initial Investment Amount		Carrying Amount		Collateral Characteristics
	Initial Investment Amount		Carrying Amount		Original Principal Balance		Current Principal Balance		WA Coupon			WA Maturity (months)		Average Loan Age (months)		Delinquency 30+ (A)			1 Month CPR (B)			1 Month CRR (C)			1 Month CDR (D)
Portfolio I	$	43,742	$	43,971	$	9,940,385	$	9,705,512		6.1	%		288		62		7.6	%		9.5	%		9.4	%		0.1	%

(A)

The percentage of underlying loans that missed their last payment.

(B)

Constant prepayment rate.

(C)

Voluntary prepayment rate.

(D)

Involuntary prepayment rate.

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 feasible and 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. 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 of December 31, 2011 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 – Interest Rate and Credit Spread Sensitive Instruments and Fair Value.”

Debt Obligations

The following table presents certain summary information regarding our debt obligations and related hedges as of December 31, 2011 (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	$	2,405,044	$	2,403,605		2.76%		3.7	$	2,383,203	$	3,126,824	$	2,353,413	$	2,360,015		3.8	$	1,145,644	$	1,172,612

Other Bonds and Notes

Payable		202,456		200,377		4.31%		3.5		5,491		370,189		327,816		327,816		6.6		88,558		-

Repurchase Agreements (4)		239,740		239,740		0.49%		0.2		239,740		232,355		244,916		244,916		4.6		232,355		-

Junior Subordinated
Notes Payable		51,004		51,248		7.41%		23.3		-		-		-		-		-		-		-


Subtotal debt obligations		2,898,244		2,894,970		2.76%		3.7	$	2,628,434	$	3,729,368	$	2,926,145	$	2,932,747		4.1	$	1,466,557	$	1,172,612


Financing on Subprime Mortgage Loans Subject to Call Option		406,217		404,723

Total debt obligations	$	3,304,461	$	3,299,693

(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, and $95.3 million and $88.3 million notional amount of interest rate swap agreements in CDOs IV and VI, respectively, which were economic hedges not designated as hedges for accounting purposes.

(4)	These repurchase agreements were partially secured by $29.1 million face amount of notes issued by Newcastle CDO VI, which was repurchased by Newcastle in December 2010 and eliminated in consolidation. As of December 31, 2011, the maximum recourse to Newcastle was $2.2 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 completed 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 - 2006		45,713,817
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
2011		43,153,825	$4.55-$6.00		$210.8

December 31, 2011		105,181,009

(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, loans, excess MSRs 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 2011, 2010, or 2009.

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, mortgage servicers, 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 we 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, as a result of the Act, we were required to register as an investment adviser with the SEC, which increases our regulatory compliance costs and subjects us to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”). The Advisers Act imposes numerous obligations on registered investment advisers, including record-keeping, reporting, operational and marketing requirements, disclosure obligations and prohibitions on fraudulent activities. The SEC is authorized to institute proceedings and impose sanctions for violations of the Advisers Act, ranging from fines and censure to termination of an investment adviser’s registration. Investment advisers also are subject to certain state securities laws and regulations. Non-compliance with the Advisers Act or other federal and state securities laws and regulations could result in investigations, sanctions, disgorgement, fines and reputational damage.

The Act will impose mandatory clearing, exchange-trading and margin requirements on many derivatives transactions (including formerly unregulated over-the-counter derivatives) in which we may engage. The Act also creates new categories of regulated market participants, such as “swap-dealers,” “security-based swap dealers,” “major swap participants” and “major security-based swap participants,” who will be subject to significant new capital, registration, recordkeeping, reporting, disclosure, business conduct and other regulatory requirements that will give rise to new administrative costs. In addition, the new regulation of over-the-counter derivatives and a recently-adopted implementing rule may require us to register with and be regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) as a commodity pool operator (“CPO”). The Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations impose various requirements on CPOs, including record-keeping, reporting, operational and marketing requirements, disclosure obligations and prohibitions on fraudulent activities. Complying with these requirements could increase our expenses and negatively impact our financial results.

Even if certain new requirements are not directly applicable to us, they may still increase our costs of entering into transactions with the parties to whom the requirements are directly applicable. Moreover, new exchange-trading and trade reporting requirements may lead to reductions in the liquidity of derivative transactions, causing higher pricing or reduced availability of derivatives, or the reduction of arbitrage opportunities for us, which could adversely affect the performance of certain of our trading strategies. 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 certain U.S. government programs intended to stabilize the economy and the financial markets will have on our business.

In recent years, the U.S. government has taken a number of steps to attempt to strengthen the 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 continues to evaluate or implement an array of other measures and programs intended 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. It is not clear what impact the government’s future actions to improve financial and market conditions 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.

Legislation that permits modifications to the terms of outstanding loans has negatively affected our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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 current or future investments, including investments in mortgage-backed securities, mortgage servicing rights (“MSRs”) and excess mortgage servicing rights (“excess MSRs”). 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 a 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. Additional legislation intended to provide relief to borrowers may be enacted and could further harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

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 us 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 that are higher than their economic interests in us 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 us and have no obligation to offer to us 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 target as its primary investment category investment in U.S. dollar-denominated credit sensitive real estate related securities reflecting primarily U.S. 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 amount of time our manager, its officers or other employees spend managing us. In addition, we may engage (subject to our investment guidelines) 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, investments in excess MSRs and senior living facilities, that present an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. 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, as well as compensation arrangements that we may enter into with our manager in the future (in connection with new lines of business or other activities), may incentivize our manager to invest in high risk investments. In addition to its management fee, our manager is currently 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 or, in the case of any future incentive compensation arrangement, other financial measures on which incentive compensation may be based, may lead our manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of such measures 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 since 2008. 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.

It would be difficult and costly for us to terminate our management agreement with our manager. 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 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 the assets in which we invest 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.

We are actively exploring new business opportunities, which may be unsuccessful, divert managerial attention or require significant financial resources, which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

Consistent with our broad investment guidelines and our investment objectives, we have acquired and are actively exploring additional opportunities to acquire excess MSRs and additional classes of operating real estate, including senior living facilities. See “ — We invest in excess MSRs, and such investments could have a negative impact on our financial results,” and “ — We may invest in senior living facilities, which are subject to various risks that could have a negative impact on our financial results.”

Although we currently believe that we will have significant opportunities to acquire such assets in the future, these opportunities may not materialize. We also believe investing in such assets will provide us attractive risk-adjusted returns, but, assuming we are successful in acquiring these assets, they may not achieve the returns we anticipate and may not even be profitable. Moreover, these investments may not be successful, given that we do not have significant experience in owning these types of assets, or for other reasons. Further, these new business opportunities may divert managerial attention from more profitable opportunities, and they may require significant financial resources. Any or all of the foregoing could have a negative impact on our financial results.

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;

•

Prepayment speeds, delinquency rates and legislative/regulatory changes with respect to our investments in excess MSRs;

•

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. Since then, market conditions have generally improved, but they could deteriorate in the future.

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 our net interest income from loans and securities in our portfolio and our income from excess mortgage servicing rights, 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 coverage tests applicable to our CDO financings 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 us) 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 had approximately $128.2 million of assets in our consolidated CDOs as of December 2011 or February 2012, 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 2011 remittance date for CDO IV and as of the February 2012 remittance date for CDO VI, these CDOs were not in compliance with their applicable over collateralization tests and, consequently, we are not receiving residual cash flows from these CDOs. However, we continue to receive senior management fees and cash flow 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, one strategy we have employed to facilitate compliance with over collateralization tests has been to repurchase notes issued by our CDOs and subsequently cancel them in accordance with the terms of the relevant governing documentation. However, there can be no assurance that the trustee of our CDOs will not impose guidelines for such cancelations that would make it more difficult or impossible to employ this strategy 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 Investors Service 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 be removed 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 specifies 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 could 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 could negatively affect our cash flows, business, results of operations and financial condition. On June 17, 2011, CDO V 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

V. So long as the event of default continues, we will not be permitted to purchase or sell any collateral in CDO V. If we are removed as the collateral manager of CDO V, we would no longer receive the senior management fees from such CDO. As of February 29, 2012, 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 V, the loss of senior management fees would not have a material negative impact on our cash flows, business, results of operations or financial condition. 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 many classes of securities issued by the CDOs were rated as “distressed” by the rating agencies 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 adviser, which has increased our 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 the 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 was 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 their 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 for any shortfall between the value of our obligation to the counterparty and the amount for which the collateral was sold (which may be a significantly discounted price). As of December 31, 2011, we had $239.7 million outstanding under repurchase agreement financings. Moreover, all of our repurchase agreement obligations are with two counterparties. If any of our counterparties elected not to roll these repurchase agreements, 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. During the recent financial crisis, the return we were able to earn on our investments and cash available for distribution to our stockholders was 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. While our liquidity position has improved, we cannot assure you that we will be able to sustain our improved liquidity position.

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 a counterparty was downgraded below these levels, it may not be able to satisfy its obligations under the derivative, which could have a material negative effect on the applicable CDO.

Furthermore, with respect to our investments in excess MSRs, we are subject to the risks of the mortgage servicer. To the extent that it is terminated as the mortgage servicer of the underlying mortgage loan pool, or files for bankruptcy, our ability to receive excess mortgage servicing fees or eventually recover our investment would be severely impacted. See “– We will be dependent on mortgage servicers to service the mortgage loans underlying any mortgage servicing rights that we acquire.”

The counterparty risks that we face have increased in complexity and magnitude as a result of the insolvency of a number of major financial institutions (such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers). 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 two counterparties. If any of our counterparties elected not to roll these repurchase agreements, 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 a few counterparties. 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.

We may not match fund certain of our investments, which may increase the risks associated with these investments.

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

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 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, we may not recover the amount invested in, or, in extreme cases, any of our investment in such securities.

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 invest in excess MSRs, and such investments could have a negative impact on our financial results.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT and our exemption from the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”), we have purchased and may continue to purchase excess MSRs with Nationstar, which is a leading residential mortgage servicer that is externally managed by our manager. We may also purchase excess MSRs directly from Nationstar or enter into similar transaction with other bank or non-bank servicers.

Excess MSRs are interests in mortgage servicing rights, representing a portion of the fee paid to mortgage servicers. The fee that a mortgage servicer is entitled to receive for servicing a pool of mortgages generally exceeds the reasonable compensation that would be charged in an arm’s-length transaction. For example, government-sponsored entities (“GSEs”), such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (“FHLMC”), generally require mortgage servicers to be paid a minimum servicing fee that significantly exceeds the amount a servicer would charge in an arm’s-length transaction. The portion of the fee in excess of what would be charged in an arm’s-length transaction is commonly referred to as the excess mortgage servicing fee.

We record excess MSRs on our balance sheet at fair value, and changes in their fair value are reflected in our consolidated results of operations. The determination of the fair value of excess MSRs requires our management to make numerous estimates and assumptions that could materially differ from actual results. Such estimates and assumptions include, without limitation, estimates of the future cash flows from the excess mortgage servicing fees, which in turn are based upon assumptions about interest rates as well as prepayment rates, delinquencies and foreclosure rates of the underlying mortgage loans.

The ultimate realization of the value of excess MSRs, which are measured at fair value on a recurring basis, may be materially different than the fair values of such excess MSRs as may be reflected in our consolidated statement of financial position as of any particular date. The use of different estimates or assumptions in connection with the valuation of these assets could produce materially different fair values for such assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, there may be material uncertainty about the fair value of any excess MSRs we acquire.

The values of excess MSRs are highly sensitive to changes in interest rates. Historically, the value of excess MSRs has increased when interest rates rise and decreased when interest rates decline due to the effect those changes in interest rates have on prepayment estimates. We may pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, the type of assets held and other changing market conditions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us. To the extent we do not utilize derivatives to hedge against changes in the fair value of excess MSRs, our balance sheet,

results of operations and cash flows would be susceptible to significant volatility due to changes in the fair value of, or cash flows from, excess MSRs as interest rates change.

Prepayment speeds significantly affect the value of excess MSRs. Prepayment speed is the measurement of how quickly borrowers pay down the unpaid principal balance of their loans or how quickly loans are otherwise brought current, modified, liquidated or charged off. When we purchase excess MSRs, we base the price we pay and the rate of amortization of those assets on, among other things, our projection of the cash flows from the related pool of mortgage loans. Our expectation of prepayment speeds is a significant assumption underlying those cash flow projections. If prepayment speeds are significantly greater than expected, the carrying value of excess MSRs could exceed their estimated fair value. If the fair value of excess MSRs decreases, we would be required to record a non-cash charge, which would have a negative impact on our financial results. Furthermore, a significant increase in prepayment speeds could materially reduce the ultimate cash flows we receive from excess MSRs, and we could ultimately receive substantially less than what we paid for such assets.

Moreover, delinquency rates have a significant impact on the value of excess MSRs. An increase in delinquencies will generally result in lower revenue because typically we will only collect servicing fees from GSEs or mortgage owners for performing loans. The price we pay for excess MSRs is based on, among other things, our projections of the cash flows from related pools of mortgage loans. Our expectation of delinquencies is a significant assumption underlying those cash flow projections. If delinquencies are significantly greater than expected, the estimated fair value of the excess MSRs could be diminished. As a result, we could suffer a loss, which would have a negative impact on our financial results.

Furthermore, MSRs are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations and may be subject to various judicial and administrative decisions imposing various requirements and restrictions on our business. If the servicer, actually or allegedly failed to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations, it could be terminated as the servicer, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Our ability to acquire excess MSRs will be subject to the applicable REIT qualification tests, and we may have to hold these interests through taxable REIT subsidiaries, which would negatively impact our returns from these assets.

We will be dependent on mortgage servicers to service the mortgage loans underlying any mortgage servicing rights that we acquire.

Our investments in MSRs or excess MSRs are dependent on the mortgage servicer to perform the servicing obligations. As a result, we could be materially and adversely affected if the servicer is terminated, or is unable to adequately service the underlying mortgage loans due to:

•

its failure to comply with applicable laws and regulation;

•

its failure to perform its loss mitigation obligations;

•

a downgrade in its servicer rating;

•

its failure to perform adequately in its external audits;

•

a failure in its operational systems or infrastructure;

•

regulatory scrutiny regarding foreclosure processes lengthening foreclosure timelines;

•

a GSE’s or a whole-loan owner’s transfer of servicing to another party; or

•

any other reason.

In addition, a bankruptcy by any mortgage servicer that services the mortgage loans underlying any mortgage servicing rights that we have acquired or may acquire in the future could result in:

•

the validity and priority of our ownership in the mortgage servicing rights being challenged in a bankruptcy proceeding;

•

payments made by such servicer to us, or obligations incurred by it, being avoided by a court under federal or state preference laws or federal or state fraudulent conveyance laws;

•

a re-characterization of any sale of mortgage servicing rights or other assets to us as a pledge of such assets in a bankruptcy proceeding; or

•

any agreement pursuant to which we purchased the mortgage servicing rights being rejected in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Any of the foregoing events could have a material and adverse effect on us.

GSE initiatives and other actions may adversely affect returns from investments in MSRs or excess MSRs.

On January 17, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency announced that it has instructed FNMA and FHLMC to study possible alternatives to the current residential mortgage servicing and compensation system used for single-family mortgage loans. It is too early to determine what the GSEs, including FNMA and FHLMC, may propose as alternatives to current servicing compensation practices, or when any such alternatives would become effective. Although we do not expect MSRs that have already been created to be subject to any changes implemented by FNMA and FHLMC, it is possible that, because of the significant role of FNMA and FHLMC in the secondary mortgage market, any changes they implement could become prevalent in the mortgage servicing industry generally. Other industry stakeholders or regulators may also implement or require changes in response to the perception that the current mortgage servicing practices and compensation do not appropriately serve broader housing policy objectives. These proposals are still evolving. To the extent the GSEs implement reforms that materially affect the market for conforming loans, there may be secondary effects on the subprime and Alt-A markets. These reforms may have a material adverse effect on the economics or performance of any excess MSRs or MSRs that we may acquire in the future.

Changes to the minimum servicing fee for GSE loans could occur at any time and could impact us in significantly negative ways that we are unable to predict or protect against.

Currently, when a loan is sold into the secondary market for FNMA and FHLMC loans, the servicer is generally required to retain a minimum servicing fee (“MSF”) of 25 basis points of the outstanding principal balance for fixed rate mortgages. As has been widely publicized, in September 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced that a Joint Initiative on Mortgage Servicing Compensation was seeking public comment on two alternative mortgage servicing compensation structures detailed in a discussion paper. Changes to MSF could significantly impact our business in negative ways that we cannot predict or protect against. For example, a removal of MSF could radically change the mortgage servicing industry and could severely limit the excess MSRs that will be available for us to invest in. We cannot predict whether any changes to current MSF rules will occur or what impact any changes will have on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

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, mortgage servicers, 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 returns 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 that are suitable for 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 CDO’s 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. 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 have acquired 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 have limited or excluded 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 than it has been historically because, if we were to sell such assets, we would 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 our 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.

We may invest in senior living facilities, which are subject to various risks that could have a negative impact on our financial results.

Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we may invest in senior living facilities. In connection with any such investment, we expect that we would engage a third party (possibly an affiliate of our manager) to manage the operations of these facilities, for which we would pay a management fee. The income from any senior living facilities would be dependent on the ability of the managers of such facilities to successfully manage these properties. The managers would compete with other companies on a number of different levels, including: the quality of care provided, reputation, the physical appearance of a facility, price and range of services offered, alternatives for healthcare delivery, the supply of competing properties, physicians, staff, referral sources, location, the size and demographics of the population in surrounding areas, and the financial condition of tenants and managers. A manager’s inability to successfully compete with other companies on one or more of the foregoing levels could adversely affect the senior living facility and materially reduce the income we would receive from an investment in such facility.

In addition, private, federal and state payment programs as well as the effect of laws and regulations may also have a significant impact on the profitability of such facilities. The failure of a manager to comply with any of these laws could result in the loss of accreditation, denial of reimbursement, imposition of fines, suspension or decertification from federal and state healthcare programs, loss of license or closure of the facility. These events, among others, could result in the loss of part or all of any investment we make in a senior living facility.

Furthermore, the ability to successfully manage a senior living facility depends on occupancy levels. Any senior living facility in which we invest may have relatively flat or declining occupancy levels due to falling home prices, declining incomes, stagnant home sales and other economic factors. In addition, the senior housing segment may continue to experience a decline in occupancy due to the weak economy and the associated decision of certain residents to vacate a facility and instead be cared for at home. A material decline in occupancy levels and revenues may make it more difficult for the manager of any senior living facility in which we invest to successfully generate income for us. Alternatively, to avoid a decline in occupancy, a manager may reduce the rates charged, which would also reduce our revenues and therefore negatively impact the ability to generate income.

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 any 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, that 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.

The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, limit our ability to hedge. 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. 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 that would cause us to fail the REIT gross income and asset tests.

Accounting for derivatives under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or 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, the Financial Accounting Standards Board and other regulatory bodies that establish the accounting rules applicable to us have recently proposed or enacted a wide array of changes to accounting rules. Moreover, in the future these regulators may propose additional changes that we do not currently anticipate. 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 protect 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 operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Environmental compliance costs and liabilities with respect to 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 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.

Lawsuits, investigations and indemnification claims could result in significant liabilities and reputational harm, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

From time to time, we may be involved in lawsuits or investigations or receive claims for indemnification. Our efforts to resolve any such lawsuits, investigations or claims could be very expensive and highly damaging to our reputation, even if the underlying claims are without merit. We could potentially be found liable for significant damages or indemnification obligations. Such developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, 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 us 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 do 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 Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, will not contend that our interests in subsidiaries or other issuers violate 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 provisions of the Code, we also would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we initially 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 (the “NYSE”) 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 we were delisted as a result of losing our REIT status and desired to relist our shares on the NYSE, we 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 us to become a listed company under these heightened standards. Given current conditions, we might not be able to satisfy the NYSE’s listing standards for a domestic corporation. As a result, if we were delisted from the NYSE, we might not be able to relist as a domestic corporation, in which case our common and preferred shares could not trade on the NYSE.

The failure of assets subject to repurchase agreements to qualify as real estate assets could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

We may enter into financing arrangements that are structured as sale and repurchase agreements pursuant to which we would nominally sell certain of our assets to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase these assets at a later date in exchange for a purchase price. Economically, these agreements are financings that are secured by the assets sold pursuant thereto. We believe that, for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests, we should be treated as the owner of the assets that are the subject of any such sale and repurchase agreement, notwithstanding that those agreements may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could assert that we did not own the assets during the term of the sale and repurchase agreement, in which case we might fail to qualify as a REIT.

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 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 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, 2010, we had a loss carryforward, inclusive of net operating loss and capital loss, of approximately $1.05 billion. 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 twenty years and five years, respectively. As a result, we do not expect that there will be any REIT distribution requirements for the year ending December 31, 2011, except as described below.

Our ability to utilize net operating loss carryforwards and certain built-in losses to reduce our future taxable income and related REIT distribution requirements may become limited by provisions of the Code, thereby jeopardizing our ability to maintain our status as a REIT.

In order to maintain our tax status 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 gains) each year to our stockholders. To qualify for the tax benefits accorded to REITs, we intend to make distributions to our stockholders such that we distribute all or substantially all our net taxable income (if any) each year, subject to certain adjustments. However, our ability to meet this distribution requirement and maintain our status as a REIT may be adversely affected if certain provisions of the Code prevent us from utilizing our net operating loss carryforwards and certain built-in losses to reduce our taxable income, thereby increasing both our taxable income and the related REIT distribution requirement to a level that we are unable to satisfy. Specifically, the Code limits the ability of a company that undergoes an “ownership change” to utilize its net operating loss carryforwards and certain built-in losses to offset taxable income earned in years after the

ownership change. An ownership change occurs if, during a three-year testing period, more than 50% of the stock of a company is acquired by one or more persons (or certain groups of persons) who own, directly or constructively, 5% or more of the stock of such company. An ownership change can occur as a result of a public offering of stock, as well as through secondary market purchases of our stock and certain types of reorganization transactions.

Generally, if an ownership change occurs, the annual limitation on the use of net operating loss carryforwards and certain built-in losses is equal to the product of the applicable long-term tax exempt rate and the value of the company’s stock immediately before the ownership change. If we were to undergo an ownership change as a result of a stock offering or otherwise, depending on the aggregate value of our stock and the level of the applicable federal tax rate at the time of the ownership change, we might be unable to use our net operating loss carryforwards and built-in losses to offset our taxable income, and we would therefore be required to distribute larger amounts to our stockholders in order to maintain our status as a REIT. No assurance can be given that we will be able to satisfy our distribution requirement following an ownership change or otherwise. If we were to fail to satisfy our distribution requirement, it 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.

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 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 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 effect 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 would, in turn, increase the amount of income we would be required to distribute to shareholders in order to maintain our REIT status. We expect that this disconnect will 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, 2011, no such cancellation of CDO debt had been effected as a result of losses incurred. However, we expect that such cancellation of indebtedness within our CDOs, consolidated or non-consolidated, may occur in the future. In the case of our subprime securitizations, $32.3 million of such cancellations had been effected through December 31, 2011, and we expect such cancellations will continue as losses are realized. This disconnect could also occur, and has occurred, 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 and 2010, we repurchased $787.8 million face amount of our outstanding CDO debt and junior subordinated notes at a discount, and recorded $521.1 million of gain. In compliance with tax laws, we had the ability to defer the ordinary income recorded as a result of this 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 on 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. During the year ended

December 31, 2011, we repurchased $193.2 million face amount of our outstanding CDO debt and notes payable at a discount and recorded $82.2 million of gain for tax purposes (of which only $66.1 million gain relating to $171.8 million face amount of debt repurchased was recognized for GAAP purposes). 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.

When we experience any of these disconnects, and to the extent that a distribution through stock dividends is not viable, 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 might 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 of 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 sustained downturn in our operating results and financial performance relative to previous periods or sustained 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, a portion 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 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 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 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 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 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 were 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 could incur a corporate level tax on a portion of our income from the taxable mortgage pool. In that case, we might 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. 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.

The SEC recently solicited public comment on a wide range of issues relating to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act, including the nature of the assets that qualify for purposes of the exemption and whether mortgage REITs should be regulated in a manner similar to investment companies. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of REITs, or SEC guidance regarding these exemptions, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If the SEC takes action that could result in our or our subsidiaries’ failure to maintain an exception or exemption from the Investment Company Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (a) change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (b) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or (c) register as an investment company (which, among other things, would require us to comply with the leverage constraints applicable to investment companies), any of which could negatively affect the value of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders, which could, in turn, materially and adversely affect us and the market price of our shares.

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 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, or ERISA, including whether such investment might constitute or give rise to a prohibited transaction under ERISA, the 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, which 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 our 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 ensure 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 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;

•

our ability to make investments with attractive risk-adjusted returns, including, without limitation, investments in excess MSRs or senior living facilities;

•

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 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.

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, a portion of the required amount in the form of shares of our common stock 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.

We do not currently have unpaid accrued dividends on our preferred shares. However, to the extent we do, 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.

We may in the future choose to pay dividends in our own stock, in which case you could be required to pay income taxes in excess of the cash dividends you receive.

We may in the future distribute taxable dividends that are payable in cash and shares of our common stock at the election of each stockholder. Taxable stockholders receiving such dividends will be required to include the full amount of the dividend as ordinary income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits for federal income tax purposes. As a result, stockholders may be required to pay income taxes with respect to such dividends in excess of the cash dividends received. If a U.S. stockholder sells the stock that it receives as a dividend in order to pay this tax, the sale proceeds may be less than the amount included in income with respect to the dividend, depending on the market price of our stock at the time of the sale. Furthermore, with respect to certain non-U.S. stockholders, we may be required to withhold U.S. tax with respect to such dividends, including in respect of all or a portion of such dividend that is payable in stock. In addition, if a significant number of our stockholders determine to sell shares of our common stock in order to pay taxes owed on dividends, it may put downward pressure on the trading price of our common stock.

It is unclear whether and to what extent we will be able to pay taxable dividends in cash and stock. Moreover, various aspects of such a taxable cash/stock dividend are uncertain and have not yet been addressed by the IRS. No assurance can be given that the IRS will not impose additional requirements in the future with respect to taxable cash/stock dividends, including on a retroactive basis, or assert that the requirements for such taxable cash/stock dividends have not been met.

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 105,181,009 shares of common stock were outstanding as of December 31, 2011. 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, 2011.

Item 2.

Properties.

As of December 31, 2011, 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.

Mine Safety Disclosures

None.

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.


2011	High	Low	Last Sale	Distributions Declared
First Quarter	$8.85	$5.82	$6.04	$ -

Second Quarter	$6.48	$4.18	$5.78	$ 0.10

Third Quarter	$6.65	$4.05	$4.07	$ 0.15

Fourth Quarter	$5.12	$3.56	$4.65	$ 0.15

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	$ -

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.

On February 22, 2012, the closing sale price for our common stock, as reported on the NYSE, was $5.48. As of February 22, 2012, there were approximately 73 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, 2011.


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	6,813,109 (1)	$13.02	2,013,533 (2)

Equity Compensation Plans Not Approved by Security Holders:

None	N/A	N/A	N/A

(1)	Includes options for (i) 5,998,947 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 16,000 shares granted to 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 and no award shall be granted on or after June 6, 2012 (but awards granted may extend beyond this date). The number of securities remaining available for future issuance is net of an aggregate of 130,240 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 2011, 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.

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, 2011 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,
	2011		2010		2009		2008		2007
Operating Data
Interest income	$	292,296	$	300,272	$	361,866	$	468,867	$	680,535
Interest expense		138,035		172,219		218,410		307,303		476,932

Net interest income		154,261		128,053		143,456		161,564		203,603


Impairment (Reversal)		677		(240,858)		548,540		2,991,830		220,321


Net interest income (loss) after impairment / reversal		153,584		368,911		(405,084)		(2,830,266)		(16,718)

Other Income (Loss)		135,790		282,287		227,399		(112,809)		(8,885)
Expenses		30,233		29,528		31,901		32,623		39,724


Income (loss) from continuing operations		259,141		621,670		(209,586)		(2,975,698)		(65,327)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations		306		(8)		(318)		(9,654)		(130)

Net income (loss)		259,447		621,662		(209,904)		(2,985,352)		(65,457)
Preferred dividends		(5,580)		(7,453)		(13,501)		(13,501)		(12,640)
Excess of carrying amount of exchanged preferred stock over fair value of consideration paid		-		43,043		-		-		-

Income (loss) applicable to common stockholders	$	253,867	$	657,252	$	(223,405)	$	(2,998,853)	$	(78,097)

Income (loss) per share of common stock, diluted	$	3.09	$	10.96	$	(4.23)	$	(56.81)	$	(1.52)

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	$	3.09	$	10.96	$	(4.22)	$	(56.63)	$	(1.52)


Weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding, diluted		81,990		59,949		52,864		52,785		51,369

Dividends declared per share of common stock	$	0.40	$	-	$	-	$	0.75	$	2.85


	As Of December 31,
	2011		2010			2009			2008			2007
Balance Sheet Data
Non-Recourse VIE Financing Structures
Real estate securities, available-for-sale	$	1,479,214	$	1,859,984		$	1,784,487		$	1,472,253		$	3,507,813
Real estate related loans, held-for-sale, net		807,214		750,130			554,367			696,523			1,418,382
Residential mortgage loans, held-for-investment, net		331,236		124,974			-			-			529,975
Residential mortgage loans, held-for-sale, net		-		252,915			380,123			406,265			-
Other investments		18,883		18,883			-			-			-
Restricted cash		105,040		157,005			200,251			37,483			65,578
Total assets		3,179,324		3,612,733			3,358,877			3,050,535			5,963,778
Total debt		3,015,251		3,689,875			4,765,631			5,138,627			5,755,207
Total liabilities		3,150,683		3,875,181			4,971,677			5,474,308			5,863,916

Recourse Financing Structures and Unlevered Assets
Real estate securities, available-for-sale		252,530		600			46,308			196,495			1,328,071
Real estate related loans, held-for-sale, net		6,366		32,475			19,495			146,689			438,596
Residential mortgage loans, held-for-sale, net		2,687		298			3,524			3,367			104,630
Investments in excess mortgage servicing rights at fair value		43,971		-			-			-			-
Other investments		6,024		6,024			-			-			-
Cash and cash equivalents		157,356		33,524			68,300			49,746			55,916
Restricted cash		-		-			-			6,799			67,548
Total assets		472,475		74,378			155,751			423,088			2,073,992
Total debt		284,442		55,936			174,573			376,572			1,636,487
Total liabilities		309,027		59,515			183,603			392,847			1,726,229

Aggregate
Total assets		3,651,799		3,687,111			3,514,628			3,473,623			8,037,770
Total debt		3,299,693		3,745,811			4,940,204			5,515,199			7,391,694
Total liabilities		3,459,710		3,934,696			5,155,280			5,867,155			7,590,145
Common stockholders’ equity (deficit)		130,506		(309,168	)		(1,793,152	)		(2,546,032	)		295,125
Preferred stock		61,583		61,583			152,500			152,500			152,500

Supplemental Balance Sheet Data

Common shares outstanding		105,181		62,027			52,913			52,789			52,779
Book value (deficit) per share of common stock	$	1.24	$	(4.98	)	$	(33.89	)	$	(48.23	)	$	5.59

Other Data
Core earnings (1)	$	118,448	$	91,072		$	98,054		$	115,440		$	151,239

(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, derivatives and debt obligations, including impairment. “Core earnings,” which was referred to as “Net Interest Income Less Expenses (Net of Preferred Dividends)” in our prior filings, is a non-GAAP measure of the operating performance of Newcastle that excludes the fifth variable listed above and is equal to net interest income less expenses and preferred dividends. 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 this measure as Newcastle’s “core” current earnings, while gains and losses (including impairment) are simply a potential indicator of future earnings. Management believes that this measure 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.

Core earnings 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 activities and net income, see Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussed Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources” below. Our calculation of core earnings may be different from the calculation used by other companies and, therefore, comparability may be limited. Set forth below is a reconciliation of core earnings to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure.

Calculation of core earnings:


	Year Ended December 31,
	2011		2010		2009		2008		2007

Income (loss) applicable to common stockholders	$	253,867	$	657,252	$	(223,405)	$	(2,998,853)	$	(78,097)
Add (deduct):

Impairment (reversal)		677		(240,858)		548,540		2,991,830		220,321

Other (income) loss		(135,790)		(282,287)		(227,399)		112,809		8,885

(Income) loss from discontinued operations		(306)		8		318		9,654		130

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


Core earnings	$	118,448	$	91,072	$	98,054	$	115,440	$	151,239

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, excess mortgage servicing rights (“excess MSRs”) 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, our operating results and book value improved meaningfully during 2011.

We currently own a diversified portfolio of credit sensitive real estate debt investments, including securities, loans and excess MSRs. 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 of December 31, 2011, we had 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 generally less favorable to us relative to the terms we were able to obtain prior to the onset of challenging conditions. Specifically, the economic environment and capital markets have become volatile in the latter half of 2011. That said, we have recently been able to access more types of 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 (“non-recourse CDOs”), (ii) unlevered investments in deconsolidated Newcastle CDO debt (“unlevered CDOs”), (iii) unlevered excess MSRs, (iv) investments financed with other non-recourse debt (“non-recourse other”), (v) investments and debt repurchases financed with recourse debt (“recourse”), (vi) other unlevered investments (“unlevered other”) and (vii) corporate. With respect to the non-recourse CDOs and non-recourse other segments, Newcastle is generally entitled to receive net cash flows from these structures on a periodic basis. Revenues attributable to each segment, as restated for previously reported periods, are disclosed below (in thousands).


For the Year Ended	Non-Recourse CDOs		Unlevered CDOs		Unlevered Excess MSRs		Non-Recourse Other		Recourse		Unlevered Other		Corporate		Inter-segment Elimination		Total
December 31, 2011	$	218,131	$	344	$	1,260	$	73,364	$	2,234	$	2,636	$	167	$	(5,840)	$	292,296
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

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. A portion of the REIT distribution requirements may be able to be satisfied 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 our ability to do this 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 and continued to tighten in 2010 and the first half of 2011. However, credit spreads have widened in the second half of 2011, reflecting the currently challenging economic environment. These changes in credit spreads caused the net unrealized losses on our securities and derivatives to decrease from 2009 through early 2011 and became net unrealized gains. However, this trend reversed during the second half of 2011. Market conditions remain challenging, could change rapidly, and we cannot predict how recent or future changes in market conditions will affect our business.

We utilize multiple forms of financing, depending on their appropriateness and availability, to finance our investments, including collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) or other securitizations, private or public offerings of debt, term loans, trust preferred securities, and short-term financing in the form of loans and repurchase agreements. One component of our investment strategy is to use match funded financing structures, such as CDOs, at rates that provide a positive net spread relative to our investment returns.

Recent conditions in the credit markets have impaired our ability to match fund investments. During the past two years, financing in the form of securitizations or other long-term non-recourse structures not subject to margin requirements was generally not available or economical, and it remains difficult to obtain under current market conditions. Lenders have generally tightened their underwriting standards and increased their margin requirements, resulting in a decline in the

overall amount of leverage available to us and an increase in our borrowing costs. 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. Moreover, financial market conditions remain volatile and have been adversely affected by the unrest in the Middle East, the earthquake in Japan, the European financial crisis, continuing weakness in the U.S. job market and concern about the United States’ level of indebtedness. Volatility in equity markets could impair our ability to raise debt or equity capital or otherwise finance our business.

We believe that the current environment has created an attractive opportunity to invest in MSRs. Specifically:

—

changes in the regulatory treatment of MSRs for financial institutions subject to Basel III, a revision to the global regulatory capital and liquidity framework for banks, which will impose increased regulatory capital costs on banks for owning MSRs;

—

elevated borrower delinquencies and defaults experienced over the last few years, and increased regulatory oversight, has led to substantially higher costs for mortgage servicers and negatively impacted their profitability; and

—

mortgage servicing has become less attractive to many financial institutions due to increasingly negative publicity and heightened government and regulatory scrutiny.

These dynamics resulted in a pipeline of MSRs for sale by banks and non-bank servicers, as these institutions are under pressure to exit or reduce their exposure to the mortgage servicing business. As a result, we believe that this relative oversupply of MSRs, combined with a historically low interest rate environment and a challenging credit market, have contributed to an availability of MSRs that are attractively priced. We closed on our first investment in excess MSRs in December 2011 and are exploring opportunities to acquire additional MSRs that provide attractive risk-adjusted returns.

Liquidity

Credit and liquidity conditions improved during 2010 and 2011. The onset of the challenging credit and liquidity conditions during the financial crisis have adversely affected us and the markets in which we operate in a number of ways. For example, these conditions have 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; and

—

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).

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.

With respect to dividends, we have paid all dividends on our preferred stock through January 31, 2012. In order to maintain liquidity, we elected not to declare any dividends on our common stock from late 2008 through early 2011. However, based on the above described improvements in the markets over the last two years, and the corresponding improvement in our financial condition and liquidity, we elected to declare a quarterly dividend of $0.10 per common share for the second quarter of 2011, and a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per common share for each of the third and fourth quarters of 2011. Dividends on our common shares are paid at the beginning of the quarter succeeding the quarter to which they relate. 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 few years, 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 completed 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 - 2006		45,713,817
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
2011		43,153,825	$4.55-$6.00		$210.8

December 31, 2011		105,181,009

(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, 2011, approximately 4.8 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 6.0 million shares of our common stock at December 31, 2011.

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 historically 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 by 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, which became effective January 1, 2010, we do not have the power to direct the relevant activities of CDO V, as a result of an event of default which allows us to be removed as collateral manager of this CDO and prevents us from purchasing or selling certain collateral within this CDO, and therefore we have deconsolidated this CDO as of June 17, 2011. 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, we completed two securitization transactions to refinance our Manufactured Housing Loans Portfolios I and II. We analyzed the securitizations under the applicable accounting guidance and concluded that the securitization transactions

should be accounted for as secured borrowings. As a result, we continue to recognize the portfolios 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 secured borrowings.

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, 2011, we have not consolidated these potential VIEs due to the determination that, based on the nature of our 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, 2011.

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 $1.5 billion carrying value of securities valued using quotations as of December 31, 2011, a 100 basis point change in credit spreads would impact estimated fair value by approximately $50.7 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 liquidity conditions currently in the markets. In comparison to the prior year end, we have generally used lower discount rates as inputs to our models for ABS and CMBS-large loan/single borrower securities in order to reflect current market conditions. The other inputs to our models, including prepayment speeds, 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.

Similar changes to assumptions were made in 2010. In 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 CMBS and ABS securities valued with internal models, which have an aggregate fair value of $249.5 million as of December 31, 2011, 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	$	374,030	$	162,617

Fair value	$	180,100	$	69,400

Effect on fair value with 10% unfavorable change in:
Discount rate	$	(6,637)	$	(2,594)
Prepayment rate		N/A	$	(791)
Default rate	$	(8,016)	$	(5,382)
Loss severity	$	(7,117)	$	(8,668)

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, 2011, we had 80 securities with a carrying amount of $243.8 million that had been downgraded during 2011 and recorded a net other-than-temporary impairment charge of $1.7 million on these securities in 2011. 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 manufactured 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 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. 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 Investments in Excess Mortgage Servicing Rights

Investments in excess MSRs are aggregated into pools as applicable; each pool of excess MSRs is accounted for in the aggregate. Excess MSRs are accreted into interest income on an effective yield or “interest” method, based upon the expected excess servicing income through the expected life of the underlying mortgages. Changes to expected cash flows result in a cumulative retrospective adjustment, which will be recorded in the period in which the change in expected cash flows occurs. Under the retrospective method, the interest income recognized for a reporting period would be measured as the difference between the amortized cost basis at the end of the period and the amortized cost basis at the beginning of the period, plus any cash received during the period. The amortized cost basis is calculated as the present value of estimated future cash flows using an effective yield, which is the yield that equates all past actual and current estimated future cash flows to the initial investment. In addition, our policy is to recognize interest income only on excess MSRs in existing eligible underlying mortgages. The difference between the fair value of excess MSRs and their amortized cost basis is recorded as “Other Income” or “Other Losses”, as applicable. Fair value is generally determined by discounting the expected future cash flows using discount rates that incorporate the market risks and liquidity premium specific to the excess MSRs, and therefore may differ from their effective yields.

For excess MSRs valued with internal models as of December 31, 2011, a 10% unfavorable change in our assumptions would result in the following decreases in fair value (in thousands):


Fair value	$	43,971

Effect on fair value with 10% unfavorable change in:
Discount rate	$	(1,892)
Prepayment rate	$	(1,799)
Constant default rate	$	(500)
Delinquency rate	$	(481)
Recapture rate	$	(1,086)

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 income 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 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 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.

In May 2011, the FASB issued new guidance regarding the measurement and disclosure of fair value, which will become effective for us on January 1, 2012. We have not yet completed our assessment of the potential impact of this guidance.

In June 2011, the FASB issued a new accounting standard that eliminates the current option to report other comprehensive income and its components in the statement of stockholders’ equity. Instead, an entity will be required to present items of net income and other comprehensive income in one continuous statement or in two separate, but consecutive, statements. We have early-adopted this accounting standard and have opted to present two separate statements.

The FASB has recently issued or discussed a number of proposed standards on such topics as consolidation, the definition of an investment company, financial statement presentation, revenue recognition, leases, financial instruments, hedging, and contingencies. 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 tables summarize 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, 2011 and 2010


	Year Ended December 31,				Increase (Decrease)
	2011		2010		Amount		%
Interest income	$	292,296	$	300,272	$	(7,976)		(2.7%)
Interest expense		138,035		172,219		(34,184)		(19.8%)

Net interest income		154,261		128,053		26,208		20.5%


Impairment
Valuation allowance (reversal) on loans		(15,163)		(339,887)		324,724		95.5%
Other-than-temporary impairment on securities, net		15,840		99,029		(83,189)		(84.0%)

		677		(240,858)		241,535		100.3%


Net interest income (loss) after impairment		153,584		368,911		(215,327)		(58.4%)

Other Income (Loss)
Gain (loss) on settlement of investments, net		78,181		52,307		25,874		49.5%
Gain on extinguishment of debt		66,110		265,656		(199,546)		(75.1%)
Other income (loss), net		(8,501)		(35,676)		27,175		76.2%

		135,790		282,287		(146,497)		(51.9%)


Expenses
Loan and security servicing expense		4,649		4,580		69		1.5%
General and administrative expense		7,295		7,696		(401)		(5.2%)
Management fee to affiliate		18,289		17,252		1,037		6.0%

		30,233		29,528		705		2.4%



Income (loss) from continuing operations	$	259,141	$	621,670	$	(362,529)		(58.3%)

Interest Income

Interest income decreased by $8.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to the year ended December 31, 2010 primarily due to (i) a $12.6 million decrease in interest income as a result of the deconsolidation of CDO V in June 2011, (ii) a $6.6 million decrease in prepayment penalties we received as a result of the lower volume of the prepayment of securities and loans in the year ended December 31, 2011, offset by (iii) an $11.2 million increase in interest income as a result of new investments made, partially offset by paydowns and changes in interest rates.

Interest Expense

Interest expense decreased by $34.2 million primarily due to (i) a $7.6 million decrease in interest expense attributable to the deconsolidation of CDO V, (ii) a $5.8 million decrease in interest expense on debt as a result of the paydowns and repurchases of our CDO debt obligations, (iii) a $16.6 million decrease in interest expense on derivatives as a result of the termination of interest rate swaps, decreases in swap notional amounts and changes in interest rates and (iv) a $6.5 million decrease in the amortization of deferred hedge losses. The decreases described in (i) to (iv) above were partially offset by a $2.3 million increase in interest expense on other bonds payable and repurchase agreements due to the refinancing of our manufactured housing loan portfolios and a higher outstanding balance of repurchase agreement financing on our FNMA/FHLMC securities.

Valuation Allowance (Reversal) on Loans

The valuation allowance (reversal) on loans changed by $324.7 million primarily due to (i) a significantly larger net increase in fair values, by $278.0 million, on our real estate related loans during the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to the year ended December 31, 2011 as a result of market conditions improving more in the 2010 period than in the 2011 period and (ii) a larger net reversal of valuation allowance on our manufactured housing loans and residential mortgage loans, by $46.7 million, in the 2010 period compared to 2011 period due to the reclassification of our manufactured housing loan portfolio I, manufactured housing loan portfolio II and residential mortgage loans from held-for-sale to held-for-investment in April 2010, May 2011 and September 2011, respectively. This change in fair values and the reclassification impacted the amount of valuation allowance we were able to reverse during those periods.

In addition, the reversal of previously established valuation allowances will likely decline over time as the reversal is subject to (i) a continued improvement in loan valuations and (ii) the amount of previously established allowances that have not yet been reversed.

Other-than-temporary Impairment on Securities, Net

The other-than-temporary impairment on securities decreased by $83.2 million primarily due to improved market conditions. We recorded an impairment charge of $15.8 million on 30 securities during the year ended December 31, 2011, compared to an impairment charge of $99.0 million on 115 securities during the year ended December 31, 2010.

Gain (Loss) on Settlement of Investments, Net

The net gain on settlement of investments increased by $25.9 million as a result of the increased volume of sales and repayments of investments. We recorded a net gain of $78.2 million on 95 securities, loans and derivatives that were sold, paid off or terminated during the year ended December 31, 2011, compared to a net gain of $52.3 million on 65 securities, loans and derivatives that were sold, paid off or terminated during the year ended December 31, 2010.

Gain (Loss) on Extinguishment of Debt

The gain on extinguishment of debt decreased by $199.5 million due to a lower face amount and a higher average price of debt repurchased in the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to the year ended December 31, 2010.

We repurchased $171.8 million face amount of our own CDO debt and other bond payable at an average price of 61.2% of par during the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to $483.7 million face amount of CDO bonds repurchased at an average price of 44.6% of par during the year ended December 31, 2010.

Other Income (Loss), Net

Other loss decreased by $27.2 million primarily due to (i) a $22.0 million decrease in unrealized losses recognized on certain interest rate swap agreements, which were de-designated as accounting hedges as the hedged items were no longer probable of occurring, (ii) a $4.5 million increase in fair value of certain non-hedge derivative instruments and (iii) a $2.0 million increase in management fees, included in Other Income, in 2011 related to our acquisition of the collateral management rights with respect to certain C-BASS CBOs in February 2011. The decreases in other loss were partially offset by a $1.5 million increase in hedge ineffectiveness recognized on certain interest rate swap agreements and a $0.2 million increase in other income.

Loan and Security Servicing Expense

Loan and security servicing expense remained relatively stable during the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to the year ended December 31, 2010.

General and Administrative Expense

General and administrative expense decreased by $0.4 million primarily due to a $0.9 million decrease in directors and officers liability insurance expense, offset by a net $0.5 million increase in legal and professional fees due to the acquisition of excess MSRs investments and public offerings in the year ended December 31, 2011.

Management Fee to Affiliate

Management fees increased by $1.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to the year ended December 31, 2010 due to a net increase in gross equity as a result of our public offerings of common stock in March 2011 and September 2011, partially offset by the return of capital distributions made on our preferred stock in 2010.

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