Good morning and welcome to the Q3 2025 Annual Capital Management Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star, then 1 on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press star, then 2. Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Sean Kempstil, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and welcome to the third quarter 2025 earnings call for Annaly Capital Management. Any forward-looking statements made during today's call are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, which are outlined in the risk factors section in our most recent annual and quarterly SEC filings. Actual events and results may differ materially from these forward-looking statements. We encourage you to read the disclaimer in our earnings release in addition to our quarterly and annual filings. Additionally, the content of this conference call may contain time-sensitive information that is accurate only as of the date hereof. We do not undertake and specifically disclaim any obligation to update or revise this information. During this call, we may present both GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. A reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP measures is included in our earnings release. Content referenced in today's call can be found in our third quarter 2025 investor presentation and third quarter 2025 financial supplement, both found under the presentation section of our website. Please also note this event is being recorded. Participants on this morning's call include David Finkelstein, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Chief Investment Officer, Serena Wolt, Chief Financial Officer, Mike Fania, Co-Chief Investment Officer and Head of Residential Credit, V.S. Srinivasan, Head of Agency, and Ken Adler, Head of Mortgage Servicing Rights. And with that, I'll turn the call over to David.

Thank you, Sean. Good morning, everyone, and thank you all for joining us for our third quarter earnings call. Today, as usual, I'll briefly review the macro and market environment, as well as our performance for the quarter. Then I'll provide an update on each of our three businesses, ending with our outlook. Serena will then discuss her financials before opening up the call to Q&A. Now, starting with the macro landscape, the U.S. economy remained resilient in the third quarter, with GDP likely to be on pace with that at Q2. Growth was supported by healthier consumer spending, as well as AI-driven business investment, despite lingering uncertainty around tariffs and immigration. Inflation remained elevated near 3% during the quarter, though the anticipated uptick in goods inflation resulting from higher tariffs has been more muted than expected thus far. Labor market conditions did weaken, with hiring slowing to a mere 30,000 jobs per month over the past three months, while sentiment around future hiring deteriorated. Although the unemployment rate has moved only slightly higher, the Fed's 25 basis point cut in September and forward guidance was supported by an outlook that suggests growing downside risks to its employment mandate. Now, yields fell modestly during the quarter and the curve steepened, given the market's expectation for modestly lower policy rates going forward. The Treasury market also benefited from a shift in issuance towards the front end of the yield curve and strong tariff revenue, the combination of which helped ease concerns about long-term debt issuance. This led to lower-term premium quarter-over-quarter and a 6-9 basis point widening in swap spreads relative to their forward implied levels, which benefited our returns. The precipitous decline in interest rate volatility during the quarter also provided meaningful support to our portfolio by lowering convexity costs and fueling much of the agency spread tightening that occurred. We generated an economic return of 8.1% for the third quarter and 11.5% year-to-date, notably recording a positive economic return for eight consecutive quarters, exhibiting the benefits of Annalise's diversified housing finance strategy. Our portfolio's earnings power remains strong, with EAD of 73 cents per share, out-earning our dividend each quarter since we increased it at the outset of the year. Also to note, we raised $1.1 billion of accretive equity in Q3, including $800 million through our ATM program. We also reopened the mortgage REIT preferred market with Annalise's first preferred issuance since 2019 and the first residential M REIT issuance in multiple years. Now, turning to our investment strategies and beginning with agency, our portfolio ended the quarter at just over $87 billion in market value, up 10% quarter over quarter, as the majority of the capital raised was deployed in agency MBS, considerate of attractive relative returns. Total growth of our agency portfolio was $7.8 billion in market value, with about 15% of that increase coming from agency CMBS and a similar share coming from market value appreciation. While the primary driver of agency performance was lower interest rate volatility, also noteworthy is that the supply and demand dynamics in the agency MBS market continue to improve. Specifically, fixed income fund inflows were more than 50% higher than the average over the past few quarters. And an additional indication of favorable technicals is that CMO demand has been heavy, with production running at over $30 billion per month, which has helped distribute MBS supply to a wider audience of investors. Overall, agency spreads tightened by 8 to 12 basis points to treasuries on the quarter, with intermediate and lower coupons outperforming higher coupons. Early in the quarter, we added agency in line with our capital raise across coupons, and ultimately, as higher coupons began to look more attractive given cheapening into lower mortgage rates, we shifted purchases to specified pools in five and a halves and sixes. Our holdings in higher coupons have been methodically constructed over the past few years to mitigate prepayment risk, which gives us flexibility to add in areas that provide the best expected return and on the hedging side we had less need to intervene this past quarter as realized volatility was somewhat muted but we did maintain our disciplined approach to rate risk management as we added hedges alongside new asset purchases with a bias towards swaps in the front end of the yield curve and as we mentioned previously relative value in the superior carry of swap hedges has informed our overweight in swaps, which added meaningfully to our economic return this past quarter. Shifting to residential credit, our portfolio increased to $6.9 billion in economic market value, representing $2.5 billion in the firm's capital. Investment-grade residential credit assets tightened during the quarter, with new origination non-QM AAA spreads ending Q3 15 basis points tighter, providing a supportive backdrop for securitization issuance. Non-agency gross securitizations have totaled $160 billion year-to-date, which is already the second largest annual gross issuance since 2008 and will end up being second only to the 2021 vintage. Our Onslow Bay platform closed eight transactions for $3.9 billion on the quarter, generating $473 million of high-yielding OBX retained securities for Analy and our joint venture. Year-to-date, we've now priced 24 transactions representing $12.4 billion of UPB, solidifying Analy as not only the largest non-bank issuer in the residential credit market, but a top 10 issuer worldwide of asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities. We also redeemed OBX 2022 NQM 8 during the quarter, exercising the transaction's three-year call feature, and we expect there to be significant embedded value in our late 22 and 23 vintage NQM issues, given current mortgage rates and securitization economics. With respect to our correspondent channel, we achieved record-setting quarterly volumes across both locks and fundings, while remaining disciplined in our approach to credit. The channel locked $6.2 billion in whole loans and funded $4 billion in the third quarter, with our quarter-end lock pipeline representing a 765 weighted average FICO, a 68 LTV, and over 96% first lien. Now, with respect to the underlying housing market, as we foreshadowed on previous calls, the market is now experiencing relatively flat year-over-year HPA nationally, as consistently elevated mortgage rates weigh on affordability. There is potential for further depreciation in the winter seasonals, as available-for-sale inventory has increased, although we do expect cumulative depreciation to be modest given the longer-term positive fundamentals of the housing market. Nonetheless, in light of softer housing, we'll remain focused on maintaining a high credit quality portfolio with a continued emphasis on manufacturing our own proprietary assets through our market-leading correspondent channel. And approximately 75% of our residential credit exposure is now comprised of OBX securities and residential whole loans, providing full control over both the acquisition and management of the assets. Now, moving to MSR, our portfolio increased by $215 million in market value to $3.5 billion, comprising $2.9 billion of the firm's capital. We purchased $17 billion in UPB across three bulk packages in our flow network during the quarter, as well as committing to purchase an additional package for $9 billion in UPB subsequent to quarter end. Our MSR valuation multiple decreased very modestly quarter over quarter, driven largely by lower mortgage rates. Our portfolio remains well-insulated as the aggregate borrower is approximately 300 basis points out of the money, and the portfolio continues to exhibit highly stable cash flows as it pays sub-5 CPR over the past three months. The fundamentals associated with conventional MSR remain positive, as evidenced by our portfolio's serious delinquencies being unchanged at 50 basis points, the competition for deposits remaining strong, resulting in better-than-expected float income, and subservicing costs decreasing, given increased technology investments across our servicing partners. Also to note, we announced a new partnership with PennyMac Financial Services subsequent to quarter-end, adding another industry-leading mortgage originator and servicer to our existing set of best-in-class subservicing and recapture partners. As part of this new relationship, we purchased $12 billion, a low note rate MSR, whereby PennyMac will handle all subservicing and recapture responsibilities for the portfolio sold. Now, shifting to our outlook, our investment strategies are well-positioned for the balance of the year given declining macro volatility, additional Fed cuts expected, and healthy fixed income demand. While agency spreads are tighter, the sector remains compelling as spread compression has been achieved through lower volatility and a steeper yield curve, thus improving the fundamentals of the asset class. Furthermore, a more accommodative monetary policy should continue to support a strong technical backdrop for agency MBS, not to mention the likelihood of regulatory reform and the potential for greater bank demand for the sector into 2026. Our residential credit business should further benefit from the growing private label market, with our Onslow Bank correspondent channel and OBX securitization platform being clear market leaders. And our MSR portfolio stands out as the lowest note rate portfolio out of the top 20 largest conventional portfolios in the market, providing highly predictable, durable cash flows with limited negative convexity. Lower note rate MSR remains our preferred positioning as investors are compensated more for selling convexity in agency MBS. We also expect MSR's supply to remain healthy as we maintain ample excess capacity to opportunistically grow our portfolio. Now, this diversified housing finance model has delivered proven results, having generated a 13% annualized economic return over the past three years since scaling each business. And while we maintain our positive outlook, we've carefully built our portfolio to guard against uncertainty, and we remain flexible in the current investing climate with historically low leverage and significant liquidity. Now, with that, I'll turn it over to Serena to discuss the financials.

Thank you, David. Today, I will provide a brief overview of the financial highlights for the quarter ended September 30, 2025. Consistent with prior quarters, while our earnings release discloses GAAP and non-GAAP earnings metrics, my comments will focus on our non-GAAP EAD and related key performance metrics, which exclude PAA. As of September 30, 2025, our book value per share increased 4.3% from 18.45 in the prior quarter to 19.25. After accounting for our dividend of 70 cents, we achieved an economic return of 8.1% for Q3. This brings our year-to-date economic return to 11.5%. We generated positive economic returns for the quarter across all of our businesses. Our performance was driven by strong results in our agency business, which benefited from spread tightening, leading to gains across the investment portfolio. These gains were partially offset by losses on our hedge positions in light of marginally lower interest rates on the quarter. Earnings available for distribution per share for the quarter were consistent with Q2 at $0.73 per share and again exceeded our dividend for the quarter. We maintained our EAD levels by generating average yields of 5.46% compared to 5.41% in the prior quarter, and our average repo rate improved by three basis points to 4.5%. Our resi credit business contributed to increased yields this quarter, driven by record securitization and loan purchases, with average yields rising to 6.29%. Net interest spread, XPAA, increased again this quarter to 1.5%, and net interest margin, XPAA, is comparable with the prior quarter at 1.7%. Turning to our financing, in conjunction with deploying the proceeds from our capital raise during the quarter, we added approximately $8.6 billion of repo principal at attractive spreads. As a result, our Q3 reported weighted average repo days maintained a healthy position of 49 days, comparable to the prior quarter, and a modest economic leverage ratio of 5.7 times, one tick lower than at the end of the second quarter. As of September 30, 2025, our total facility capacity for the resi credit business was $4.3 billion across 10 counterparties, with a utilization rate of 40%. Our MSR total available committed warehouse capacity is $2.1 billion across four counterparties as of September 30, 2025, with a utilization rate of 50%. We continue to explore additional funding relationships as we invest in our credit businesses and add new facilities in anticipation of future business growth. Annalise's financial strength is further demonstrated by our $7.4 billion in unencumbered assets at the end of the quarter. This includes cash and unencumbered agency MBS of $5.9 billion. In addition, we have roughly $1.5 billion in fair value of MSR pledged to committed warehouse facilities that can be quickly converted to cash subject to market advance rates. Combined, we have approximately $8.8 billion in assets available for financing, which is up $1.4 billion compared to the second quarter, in line with our asset growth and represents 59% of our total capital base. Finally, touching on OPEX, our efficiency ratios improved significantly during Q3, decreasing by 10 basis points to 1.41% for the quarter and now standing at 1.46% for the year-to-date period. Using period end equity as of September 30, our OPEX to equity ratio was 1.34% for the quarter, highlighting the efficiency and scale of our diversified model. This ratio is one of the lowest in the mortgage REIT sector, despite having three complementary businesses on the balance sheet. Now, that concludes our prepared remarks, and we will now open the line for questions. Thank you, Operator.

We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star then 1 on your telephone keypad. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. To withdraw your question, please press star then too. At this time, it will pause momentarily to assemble La Rosa. The first question comes from the line of Bosset George with KBW. Please go ahead.

First, just in terms of returns, the agency return, you obviously took down a couple of points just with tighter spreads. Can you talk about how that compares now with, like, in terms of your preferred area for investment? Is it more parity now with agencies and some of the other areas?

Good morning, both. And sure, from a capital allocation perspective, as we came into the third quarter, we obviously felt like agency warranted an overweight, and that certainly came to fruition. As spreads have come in, agency still looks very attractive, particularly because, as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, both fundamentally and technically, the sector has healed quite well from 2022 and 2023. Fundamentally, we have lower volatility, Fed cuts are going to continue, and we have slope to occur. And also, equally as important from a technical perspective, the demand base has broadened quite a bit. Money managers are adding. Obviously, a lot of money is coming in to fixed income, as I talked about. REITs are adding. And we haven't had banks and overseas as strong of a participation. But as the Fed does continue to cut and potentially bank deregulation occurs, We do expect more demand to come from that sector. So we feel good about the market. Spreads are tighter. We're still overweight agency, even more overweight, which benefited us. We'd like to get our resi and MSR weightings back up to a combined 40%. We're patient to do so. And we feel good about how the portfolio is positioned. But nonetheless, we would like to increase those two sectors from a near-term capital allocation perspective.

Okay, great. Thanks. And then actually just following up on that, the MSR, you guys noted the bulk supply is up, I think, 50%. Where is that coming from? How is the pricing looking? And could we see the MSR increase as a result of that?

Yeah. Hey, thanks, Boz. This is Ken. Yeah, the bulk supply has been coming from large participants. Several of them have not previously been sellers, so that is encouraging for future bulk supply. Pricing, you know, has been relatively stable throughout the year, so we're pretty much encouraged by that, like the return profile. And, you know, we opportunistically added through the quarter, as you can see, and subsequent to quarter end, Boaz.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you, Boz.

The next question comes from a line of Doug Harter with UBS. Please go ahead.

Thanks, and good morning. As you look at the agency returns, can you help break down kind of how you see, like, OAS returns versus how much of it's coming from the swap spread and how that makes you think about the risk of the position?

Sure. So, I mean, the spread to swaps versus treasuries is running around 35 to 40 basis points. So if you're fully 100% hedged to swaps, spreads are about 35 to 40 basis points wider than what they would be hedged to treasuries. On, let's say, 35 and a half, we see to our hedge ratio, we're using about 65% swaps and 35% treasuries. to our mix of hedges, we see a blended yield of about 160 basis points, which is just shy of a 17% ROE. Now, 25.5 is a fair amount of option costs. I would put the option cost somewhere in the 60 to 65 basis point range. But depending on what kind of specified pool you buy and how much you allow your duration to drift, you can substantially decrease the hedging cost. What has really helped over the last quarter is how low realized volatility has been. Realized volatility has been running below implied volatility. And that has really helped with hedging costs. And we think we are in an environment where volatility will remain subdued, at least relative to what we saw in 2023 or 2024.

Does that help? That's very helpful. And then if you could just provide an update on how book value is faring quarter to date.

Sure, Doug. As of last night, book pre-dividend accrual was up in upwards of a percent. And if you had the dividend accrual, one and a half to two percent economic return.

Great. Appreciate that.

Thanks, Doug. the next question comes from the line of harsh himnani with green street please go ahead thank you uh so this quarter it seems like you rotated up in coupon continued that rotation but focused primarily on specified pools could you sort of talk through the puts and takes of how you're thinking about given the rate backdrop we're in right now weighing those higher coupon specified pools versus perhaps rotating into lower coupon to get some of that prepayment protection in that way?

So, we are constantly looking at what is the better way to get prepayment protection, either move down in coupon or kind of buy specified pools. What happened in the last quarter is as rates rallied to the lowest level in over a year, prepayment expectations on generic higher coupons went up materially, and this caused their duration to shrink and negatively impacted their carry profile. So not surprisingly, there was a big shift in demand to lower and intermediate coupons, and by our metrics, it looked like lower and intermediate coupons got rich relative to where higher coupons were trading. So this gave us so So when you look at specified pools, the pay-up to a cheap asset, the pay-ups are actually quite strong, but it's just that the TDA has underperformed materially, and so that made the specified pools look cheaper. The big advantage of specified pools are these are options that we own for a very long time. It's not like these options expire in six months or nine months. Once you buy a low-balance paper, it doesn't matter how long it takes for rates to rally. Eventually, when they do, you still have the option in place. So the length of the option is what makes a specified pool so much more attractive than going down in coupon or buying general collateral and tying to hedge the convexity.

Got it. That's helpful. And then maybe one of the MSRs. So it seems like the purchase this quarter was fairly, you know, low coupon, perhaps in line with your existing portfolio. But given the increase in supply we've seen perhaps over the last quarter, how is that sort of breaking down between the lower coupon MSRs and closer to production coupons?

Yeah, thank you very much for the question. And just to follow up to what Srini said, you know, we have the opportunity to look at OAS valuations in both MBS and MSR. So, when we price convexity and opportunities, we're taking convexity on the MSR side by purchasing the lower note rates. And when we do the valuations, we see, you know, more opportunity there and to participate in the higher note rates in the form of agency MDS. So, you know, that's a big part of our strategy. And, you know, as a follow-up to the other point about the increase in bulk supply, what's going on is rates have come down and mortgage origination is at a much higher level. You know, and as mentioned previously, you know, the industry just can't afford to retain all the MSR that's created in a high-volume environment.

And Harsh, just to jump in here, Ken brings up a very important point in terms of we'd rather take negative convexity risk in MBS and pass-throughs in the TBA market than in the MSR market because it's cheaper there. Now, your question to both Strati and Ken, from a big-picture perspective in terms of how we manage convexity and vol, we have a fair amount of options, and we look at everything on a portfolio basis. So, first of all, diversification outside of agency MBS in the form of resi credit and MSR is the biggest, most powerful way to reduce our negative convexity. In fact, in the resi market, every time we do a securitization, we're buying an option, essentially with the call option for a down rate type scenario. So, we're buying vol from that standpoint. And again, we pick up a better convexity profile by buying low note rate MSR, which has very little negative convexity exposure to it. And then within the agency market, obviously, Srini talked about pools and how for years we built what we think is a very durable portfolio from a convexity profile, but also agency CMBS, which we added over a billion this past quarter, which has virtually no negative convexity. So the point being is that there's a lot of options for us to mitigate our convexity risk. And I think we look at everything on a total portfolio basis and come up with the most efficient way to do it.

Got it. That's it. Thank you.

Thanks, Arsh.

The next question comes from the line of Jason Weaver with Jones Trading. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. You know, with your outlook you put out, with, you know, mortgage spreads now back at the tights, would you expect for the pace of lock volume and securitization issuance sort of towards and into year-end remains elevated despite, you know, the usual seasonal pressure?

Hey, Jason. Thanks for the question. You know, in terms of where we're at in mortgage spreads, we've actually been tighter. You know, in the beginning of the year, AAA spreads were 115 to 120 over the curve. Right now, I think that just given the supply that we've seen over the last two to three weeks and, to your point, broader supply within the market, we're probably closer to that 135 area for generic issuance. What I will say, though, is that non-QM continues to make progress in terms of market penetration. There's market share that's being created. If you look at Optimal Blue, in the month of July, they said 8% of all outstanding locks were non-QM and DSLR, which is the highest percentage that we've ever seen. If you went back two to three years, I think that number is probably closer to 2% to 3%. So I think in terms of mortgage spreads, the fact that they've been in a range, mortgage spreads, AAA spreads, they've been in kind of the 130 to 145 range. So maybe they're slightly wider than the beginning of the year, but the fact that they've been stable has allowed us to be very active. It's allowed the market to continue to grow. And I think that when you look at the last half of the year, at this point, we've done $60 billion of non-QM issuance. Last year in 2024, you know, the entire year was $47, $48 billion. I think we'll end up called $65 to $70 billion. And from our perspective, we actually had our most active month in September. We did $2.3 billion of locks within non-QM and DSCR. We did over $6 billion on the quarter. So I think that, you know, securitization may be a little bit slower than what we just did within Q2 and Q3. A lot of that is what you're mentioning. It's seasonals. It's the holidays. But I think that just the market penetration of non-QM continues to grow. And we do think it could be, you know, close to 10% of the market. So over long periods of time, we think it will continue to increase.

Got it. And then maybe more for on the agency side. There's some talk that Governor Logan is proposing shifting the Fed's primary policy tool to target tri-party repo away from Fed funds. Any sense on the likelihood there and if or how that might ultimately influence MBS repo?

Well, it's President Logan, not Governor Logan. But to answer the question, so in a speech, she did discuss that Tri-Party GC was a better indicator in terms of short-term rates relative to Fed funds. And the fact of the matter is, you know, the Fed has to evolve as the market evolves. And the Fed funds market is just not as good of a barometer of financing rates as repo is. And that's simply a reflection of that. I wouldn't read anything more into it than the Fed thinking about rates that are most impactful to markets and making sure that they have all the best information to evaluate financing markets and conduct policy. That's simply how I would read it.

Fair enough. That's very helpful. Thank you for the color. You bet.

The next question comes from the line of Eric Hagen with BTIG. Please go ahead.

Hey, thanks. Good morning, guys. This is kind of a bigger big-picture question. There was a point at which mortgage rates, including annually, applied more duration to their portfolio, and then the taper tantrum in 2013 disrupted some of that. Since then, the mortgage rates have basically hedged out all the duration in their portfolio, including yourselves. I mean, do you envision ever getting back to a point where a duration gap is part of the conversation again? Like, how do you weigh the attractiveness of – of, like, raising leverage versus letting your duration drift out a little bit more in order to create alpha?

Sure. So, obviously, we have three risks, primary risks that we take, spread basis risk in agency, credit risk, and duration risk. And we evaluate those risks based on the most attractive and place our bets where we think it has the highest risk-adjusted return. Now, as far as a duration gap, it's absolutely the case. We've been running it close to a zero duration gap for the recent past. And I think it's justified by virtue of the amount of uncertainty currently in the rates market. Look, I can give you arguments for lower rates, and I can give you arguments for higher rates. In terms of, you know, the catalyst for lower rates, obviously the Fed's cutting rates and will likely continue to do so. The deficit prognosis is better, so less long-term issuance than we might have just thought. QT is coming to an end. There's very strong demand for fixed income in the market, and that could accelerate with lower cash yields. Deregulation for banks could add demand for fixed income, and the labor market's weakening, certainly. And all of these would suggest lower rates. However, on the other side of the equation, rates do look full currently. Five-year real rates are right around 120, 10 years around 170. Nominal rates, inflation break-evens, you know, they look a little snug in the low to mid twos. And globally, you know, rates in the U.S. are a little bit low relative to the rest of the G7 at inside of 90 basis points on that average. So the market doesn't look cheap. And inflation hasn't gone away. You know, we'll get some more data this week, fortunately. The Fed will cut next week. But beyond that, it is uncertain. You had eight committee members, actually nine, I believe, nine committee members that said one or two cuts to come this year. And there's some hawks on that committee. So the market's been priced pretty aggressively in terms of cuts. We're through neutral by the end of next year in the eyes of the market. And the Fed's 50 basis points above that. So to us, you know, we get the fundamentals and what's going on that could lead to lower rates, but there's also the potential for higher rates. And the way we want to play it is, you know, something could break either way. And the best approach for us right now is to not take a lot of risk in the rates market. And fortunately, volatility has been low, and we've been able to manage our duration with minimal cost to the portfolio. And until we get a better sense of where things are going, we'll probably remain that way. Now, relative to the longer-term business model REITs taking duration risk and levered maturity transformation, there is at times carry in taking rate risk. When the yield curve is quite steep, you are paid in carry, near-term carry, for taking rate risk. And, you know, 52 basis points on twos, tens, it's positive, but it's not all that attractive. And so at some point, I'm sure we'll take a longer duration approach, but right now we feel being very close to home is where we want to be.

Yep, got you. That's really helpful. Hey, I mean, there's lots of speculation right now around the GSEs being buyers of agency MBS again, certainly in a more meaningful way. I mean, how much of that potential catalyst do you think is priced into spreads right now? And more generally, I mean, do you think their presence in the market would have an impact on the MSR market or valuations in any sort of way?

Well, a couple of points to note. There has been a lot of talk about the GSEs having entered into the market, but that's been very limited, and I wouldn't read too much into it. The market does have some expectations that they could be more active buyers as we're talking about this privatization potential and the fact that they do have capacity and the portfolios are relatively low. So there is a little bit priced into the market, But the demand for MBS has been broad and it's been strong. REITs have obviously been buyers of MBS. And again, the money flowing into fixed income funds and a third of that money on average goes to mortgages. That's been the real driver. And speculation around the GSEs is not something that we want to bank on, but it could materialize. And does it warrant consideration from a policy perspective? It certainly could. Back pre-financial crisis, the GSEs were very powerful stabilizers of spreads and that lowered spread volatility. And as a consequence of that, you ended up at a lower baseline spread. So from a policy perspective, if the government does have this desire to get spreads tighter, you know, giving the GSE some capacity and acting somewhat as guardrails, so long as it's very well regulated and they don't get out over their skis or anything like that, it could have some benefit, but it's very difficult to navigate that path. and it could be a slippery slope, so it has to be looked at very carefully. But nonetheless, as stabilizers, they could be beneficial.

Thank you, guys. Appreciate you, as always.

Thanks, Eric. The next question comes from the line of Rick Shane with J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead.

Good morning, everybody. Thanks for taking my questions, and there have been a lot of thoughtful questions and answers on this, so just one quick one. When we look at the NII adjusted for PAA, it's been really stable over the last four quarters. You guys have done a good job managing asset yields and funding costs. I'm curious at this point how confident you are that it will remain stable over the next couple quarters, and how do you sort of manage that given the uncertainty?

So, the question you're asking, I'll start from a big-picture standpoint, and then Serena can get into the accounting. But, look, at the end of the day, the portfolio has been very stable from the standpoint of low leverage, and we haven't had a lot of volatility associated with the hedged returns from an EAD perspective. It's been, you know, 72, 73 cents, and that's how we feel about this quarter. we expect to earn a TAD consistent with where we were this past quarter. Another point to note that I think helps the stability is the SWAT portfolio. So in terms of runoff, we have about a billion and a quarter running off in the first quarter of next year. Then we don't have any runoff until Q4 of 2026. So the SWAT portfolio should stay relatively stable. And the agency portfolio, the average price of the portfolio is very close to par. And so the runoff doesn't add too much volatility to the overall accounting aspect of it. So we'll see. We can't forecast too far out. But this quarter, we feel good about out-earning the dividend. And overall, the portfolio is in a stable place. Anything to add, Serena?

No, I think David covered it. Look, obviously, we have been doing really well at increasing yields as we are deploying additional capital, and that is showing up in the NII. For an accounting perspective, obviously, we lock in those yields, and so we should expect to continue to benefit from those. And obviously, as David mentioned, we do expect future Fed cuts, so we will benefit on the cost of funds side of things. So I think that, you know, all things equal. I don't have a crystal ball. we should continue to see some good levels of NII going forward.

Got it. Yeah, you know, the point about increasing yields but not increasing premiums is really the big takeaway for me on that comment. So thank you, guys.

You bet. Thanks, Rick.

The next question comes from the line of Kenneth Lee with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. And this is just a follow-up from a previous one. And fair to say that the risk appetite has been tempered down a bit. Just looking at the spread and rate sensitivity, they both declined a bit quarter for quarter. So I just wanted to check to see if that's reflective of Annaly taking a little bit less risk there.

Yeah, it's a good question, Ken. So on the rate side, there's a little bit more negative convexity in the portfolio with current coupon spreads, you know, I think 28 basis points lower. And so that does lead to what looks like a more deleterious outlook on both sides of the equation. And the duration is hovering close to flat. And to the earlier question, we're not looking to take a lot of rate risk right here. In terms of spread exposure, you know, also that decline in mortgage rate does reduce the spread duration of the portfolio. And so that's kind of occurred organically. And we were a little bit lighter coming into the quarter on MBS. We do have a little bit of dry powder. I'd say our risk posture is not overly conservative, but we, you know, to the extent we see an opportunity, we could add to the agency portfolio or an MSR or resi package over the near term locally. So, our risk view is not, you know, more negative at all by any stretch. We do just have a little bit more dry powder.

Great.

And just one follow-up. I think you touched upon this. EAD looking around consistent to be third quarter's levels. Any updated thoughts around dividend coverage, especially just given the current macro rate outlook?

Thanks. sure so again this quarter we have line of sight into and we'll see what happens um you know into 2026 but we feel very good about the dividend it's at a healthy level you know it's a little over 13 percent yield uh close to 15 percent yield on book and and and it's it feels perfectly ample and we feel like it's it's in a good place um and we also feel like when we look at the forwards And also, if the Fed doesn't cut as much as the market, we still feel like the dividend is safe. Our hedge ratio is 92%, so there's a lot of protection around the income stream. And we're perfectly comfortable with where things are at, and we'll see what happens into 2026.

Very helpful there. Thanks again.

Thank you, Ken.

The next question comes from the line of Trevor Cranston with Citizens J&P. Please go ahead.

Okay, thanks. A question on the non-agency portfolio, and I guess particularly the OBX securitizations. Can you comment on kind of what you guys are seeing there in terms of refi responsiveness as mortgage rates have come down recently? And more generally, if you could also just comment on kind of what the return sensitivity is on the subordinate positions, if we do indeed see faster prepay speeds within that portfolio. Thanks.

Sure. Thanks, Trevor. This is Mike. In terms of, you know, prepay, you know, protection and what we have been seeing within the OVX portfolio, 2023 vintage, you know, the majority of those deals that are outstanding, they're between, call it eight and eight and a half percent gross whack. Those deals are paying, you know, in the low 30s CBR, which I will say is a decent amount slower than we would have anticipated. Non-QM rates, as we sit here today, for the type of credit that we're underwriting, call it, you know, six and seven-eighths. So, you know, 100 to 150 basis points in the money. And it's, you know, only paying modestly above where we would, you know, where we would put at-the-money loans and where the market convention is, which is 25 CBR. So, I think we've been pleasantly surprised by the, you know, the convexity profile of the underlying. Part of that is driven by prepayment penalties that we see within our investor loans. Investor loans are about 50% of the loans that we buy, and about three quarters of investor loans have prepayment penalties. So, the S-curves, you know, associated with those assets are significantly flatter than what you would see within the agency conforming market. It's also significantly flatter than what you would see within the jumbo market as well. So, I think the portfolio and the broader market has been in pretty good shape in terms of prepay speeds. Regarding, you know, the level of variability within our returns, as you see within the presentation, we've kind of been in this 13% to 15% ROE range. That is referencing OBX retained securities. That's, you know, forecasting what I'll say a base speed of 20 to 25 CPR for at-the-money loans. So, I will say that the actual return profile has been higher within our retained transactions because speeds have been slower than anticipated. But, yes, there is a lot of embedded IO that we are taking once we securitize these assets, given that we are retaining the excess. But I will say at this point, it's actually been a large positive as we've out-earned our forecasted assumptions.

Okay, very helpful.

Thank you, Trevor.

This concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to David Finkelstein for any closing remarks.

Thank you, Costas, and thank you everybody for joining us today. Enjoy the fall, and we'll talk to you real soon.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.