Annaly Capital Management - derzeit etwa 15% Div-Rendite (Seite 11)

[economicus]

Annaly Capital Management, Inc. Announces Agreement to Acquire CreXus Investment Corp.
Company Release - 01/31/2013 06:30
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Annaly Capital Management, Inc. (NYSE: NLY) (“Annaly” or the “Company”) announced today that it has reached a definitive agreement with CreXus Investment Corp. (NYSE: CXS) (“CreXus”) to acquire for $13.00 per share in cash (plus a payment in lieu of a prorated dividend) all the shares of CreXus that Annaly does not currently own.

CreXus has approximately 76,630,528 shares of common stock outstanding, of which Annaly holds 9,527,778 shares, or approximately 12.4%. The transaction values CreXus at $996 million and represents a total consideration paid by Annaly of $872 million.

“This transaction represents a significant step toward Annaly’s commitment to investing directly in commercial real estate assets,” said Wellington Denahan, Annaly’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “We believe that wholly owning the commercial real estate platform we currently manage through FIDAC is complementary to our existing business and return profile and should provide stable and diversified risk-adjusted returns to our shareholders.

“This transaction is part of a broad evolution of our capital allocation strategy. Certain highlights include:

Immediately accretive - All cash offer, which is immediately accretive to both our taxable earnings and our dividends per share
Portfolio diversification - Strategic benefit of the acquisition given our existing asset management expertise and the resultant diversification of our investment portfolio
Scalable platform - Commercial platform is highly scalable when combined with Annaly’s broad capital base
“Our commercial real estate expertise, as well as our capabilities in other asset classes, are valuable strategic tools, and we look forward to updating the market on our portfolio as it evolves.”

[Ulf-Imat]

Dividende 0,45$ für Q4.

[R-BgO]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/881981-qe-infinity-a-game-ch…

[Ulf-Imat]

Quartalsdividende verbleibt bei 0,55$.

[Ulf-Imat]

Aktuelle Quartalsdividende: 0,55$

[economicus]

Annaly Capital Management, Inc. Announces 4th Quarter 2011 Dividend of $0.57 per Share


Company Release - 12/19/2011 16:05


NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Board of Directors of Annaly Capital Management, Inc. (NYSE: NLY) declared the fourth quarter 2011 common stock cash dividend of $0.57 per common share. This dividend is payable January 26, 2012 to common shareholders of record on December 29, 2011. The ex-dividend date is December 27, 2011.

[economicus]

Company Release - 09/20/2011 16:05


NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Board of Directors of Annaly Capital Management, Inc. (NYSE: NLY) declared the third quarter 2011 common stock cash dividend of $0.60 per common share. This dividend is payable October 27, 2011 to common shareholders of record on September 30, 2011. The ex-dividend date is September 28, 2011.

[Ulf-Imat]

Die Quartalsdividende erhöht sich von 0,62$ auf 0,65$.

[R-BgO]

Annaly Capital Management, Inc. (NYSE: NLY) today reported GAAP net income for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 of $1.2 billion or $1.94 per average share available to common shareholders as compared to GAAP net income of $729.3 million or $1.31 per average share available to common shareholders for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, and GAAP net loss of $14.1 million or $0.03 per average share related to common shareholders for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. GAAP net income for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $1.3 billion or $2.12 per average share available to common shareholders as compared to $2.0 billion or $3.55 per average share available to common shareholders for the year ended December 31, 2009.

Without the effect of the unrealized gains or losses on interest rate swaps, net income for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, would be $379.3 million or $0.60 per average share available to common shareholders as compared to $516.9 million or $0.93 per average share available to common shareholders for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, and $434.2 million or $0.70 per average share available to common shareholders for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. Without the effect of the unrealized gains or losses on interest rate swaps, net income for the year ended December 31, 2010, would be $1.6 billion or $2.67 per average share available to common shareholders as compared to $1.6 billion or $2.91 per average share available to common shareholders for the year ended December 31, 2009.

During the quarter ended December 31, 2010, the Company disposed of $3.1 billion of mortgage-backed securities and agency debentures, resulting in a realized gain of $33.8 million. During the quarter ended December 31, 2009, the Company disposed of $3.0 billion of mortgage-backed securities and agency debentures, resulting in a realized gain of $91.2 million. During the quarter ended September 30, 2010, the Company disposed of $3.1 billion of mortgage-backed securities and agency debentures, resulting in a realized gain of $62.0 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company disposed of $10.6 billion of mortgage-backed securities and agency debentures, resulting in a realized gain of $181.8 million. During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company disposed of $4.6 billion of mortgage-backed securities and agency debentures, resulting in a realized gain of $99.1 million.

Common dividends declared for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, were $0.64 per share as compared to $0.75 per share for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, and $0.68 per share for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. Common dividends declared for the year ended December 31, 2010, were $2.65 per share, as compared to $2.54 per share for the year ended December 31, 2009. The Company distributes dividends based on its current estimate of taxable earnings per common share, not GAAP earnings. Taxable and GAAP earnings will typically differ due to items such as non-taxable unrealized and realized gains and losses, differences in premium amortization and discount accretion, and non-deductible general and administrative expenses.

The annualized dividend yield on the Company's common stock for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, based on the December 31, 2010 closing price of $17.92, was 14.29%. The dividend yield on the Company's common stock for the year ended December 31, 2010, based on the December 31, 2010 closing price of $17.92, was 14.79%.

On a GAAP basis, the Company provided an annualized return on average equity of 49.87% for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as compared to an annualized return on average equity of 30.73% for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, and an annualized loss on average equity of 0.58% for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. Without the effect of the unrealized gains or losses on interest rate swaps, the Company provided an annualized return on average equity of 15.52% for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as compared to an annualized return on average equity of 21.78% for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, and an annualized return on average equity of 17.96% for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. On a GAAP basis, the Company provided a return on average equity of 13.06% for the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to a return on average equity of 22.69% for the year ended December 31, 2009. Without the effect of the unrealized gains or losses on interest rate swaps, the Company provided a return on average equity of 16.35% for the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared to a return on average equity of 18.65% for the year ended December 31, 2009.

Subsequent to quarter end, on January 7, 2010, the Company completed a public offering of 86,250,000 shares of common stock. The estimated net proceeds of the offering were approximately $1.5 billion, net of offering expenses.

Michael A.J. Farrell, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Annaly, commented on the Company's results. "Regulation, public policy and the state of the economy continue to be a focus of the marketplace, as the evolution of these issues will affect not only return expectations for investors in different asset classes, but also how our country will conduct business in a wide range of industries. As these issues continue to evolve there will be challenges and opportunities for all market participants. Our management team has been busily positioning the Company to perform in this evolving landscape, both in our investment portfolio and in our subsidiaries."

For the quarter ended December 31, 2010, the annualized yield on average interest-earning assets was 3.65% and the annualized cost of funds on average interest-bearing liabilities was 1.80%, which resulted in an average interest rate spread of 1.85%. This was a 94 basis point decrease from the 2.79% annualized interest rate spread for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, and a 26 basis point decrease from the 2.11% average interest rate spread for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. At December 31, 2010, the weighted average yield on interest-earning assets was 3.80% and the weighted average cost of funds on interest-bearing liabilities, including the effect of interest rate swaps, was 1.84%, which resulted in an interest rate spread of 1.96%. Leverage at December 31, 2010, was 6.7:1 compared to 5.7:1 at December 31, 2009, and 6.4:1 at September 30, 2010.

Fixed-rate mortgage-backed securities and agency debentures comprised 86% of the Company's portfolio at December 31, 2010. The balance of the mortgage-backed securities and agency debentures was comprised of 13% adjustable-rate mortgage-backed securities and 1% LIBOR floating-rate collateralized mortgage obligations. At December 31, 2010, the Company had entered into interest rate swaps with a notional amount of $27.1 billion, or 36% of the mortgage-backed securities and agency debentures portfolio. Changes in the unrealized gains or losses on the interest rate swaps are reflected in the Company's consolidated statement of operations. The purpose of the swaps is to mitigate the risk of rising interest rates that affect the Company's cost of funds. Since the Company receives a floating rate on the notional amount of the swaps, the effect of the swaps is to lock in a spread relative to the cost of financing. As of December 31, 2010, substantially all of the Company's Investment Securities were Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities and agency debentures, which carry an actual or implied "AAA" rating.

"The fixed income markets had a volatile fourth quarter," said Wellington Denahan-Norris, Annaly's Vice Chairman, Chief Investment Officer and Chief Operating Officer, "and our interest rate swap book served to mitigate that volatility. The fundamentals for our investment strategy improved throughout the quarter as prepayment speeds remained relatively muted and spreads to financing widened. Our capital raise subsequent to quarter-end was designed so that our portfolio management team could take advantage of these market conditions. After taking into account the effect of interest rate swaps, our portfolio of mortgage-backed securities and agency debentures was comprised of 37% floating-rate, 13% adjustable-rate and 50% fixed-rate assets."

[R-BgO]

The Future of Housing Finance: Annaly's Proposals to Washington
1 comment | by: Annaly Salvos September 29, 2010 | about: FMCC.OB / FNMA.OB / NLY



Today, Mike Farrell, Chairman, CEO and President of Annaly Capital Management (NLY), appeared as a panel participant at a House Financial Services Committee entitled, The Future of Housing Finance – A Review of Proposals to Address Market Structure and Transition. (The comments of each panel participant are available on the committee’s website.) Mr. Farrell's address is as follows:

Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the future of housing finance, a subject that affects virtually every American, and not just homeowners. My name is Michael Farrell, and I run Annaly Capital Management. Annaly is the largest listed residential mortgage REIT on the New York Stock Exchange with a market capitalization of $11 billion. Annaly, together with our subsidiaries and affiliates, owns or manages over $90 billion of primarily Agency and private-label mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Additionally, we also are deeply involved in the mortgage markets through our securitization, structuring, financing, pricing and advisory efforts.

I am here today representing the secondary market investors who have historically provided the majority of the capital to the $11 trillion mortgage market, and my remarks are focused on that perspective. Debate over housing finance reform has largely been about government’s role in it, and rightly so given that Fannie (FNMA.OB) and Freddie’s (FMCC.OB) government-sponsored hybrid charter was ultimately disastrous for taxpayers. However, there are certain activities that these Agencies performed that are important to the pricing and liquidity of the housing and mortgage market.

The current housing finance system, certainly the one that prevailed until underwriting standards started to slip around 2004, is the most efficient credit delivery system the world has ever seen. There are important elements of the existing system that are worth keeping:

* First: securitization, where fully documented borrowers of similar creditworthiness using similar mortgage products are pooled and receive the benefits of scale in pricing.
* Second: the government guarantee to make timely payments of interest and principal on MBS that scales the process even further by making the securities more homogeneous.
* Third: the to-be-announced, or TBA market, which is what Fannie and Freddie and Ginnie facilitate. It is through the TBA market that most residential mortgages are pooled and sold, and it enables originators and investors to hedge themselves.

I believe that the market will adapt to whatever changes occur to these items in a new housing finance system. However, the market will adapt to the new structure by repricing it. If the new system has significantly different risk, uncertainty and friction than the housing finance system we have now, the consequences may be that our housing finance system is smaller with lower housing values and less flexibility and reduced mobility for borrowers. This can have ongoing and broad consequences for economic growth.

If mortgage rates and house prices were not an issue, the government would not have to be involved in housing finance. But these are important issues. Therefore, I believe a housing finance system that utilizes a government guarantee on well-underwritten mortgage securities would maintain the significant size and liquidity of the market, as well as continue to provide for relatively lower costs to the borrower. Going forward, however, the portfolio activities of Fannie and Freddie should be eliminated. The private market would expand its investment activity to fill this role, much like Annaly and its brethren do now. But it is important for the Committee to understand that the majority of Agency MBS investors finance their positions, using financing that is available and priced where it is because of the government guarantee on the assets. Fannie and Freddie financed their portfolio purchases through the capital provided by the debt markets. This is an essential component of housing finance.

In any transition, Congress must consider the potential size of the market in the system to which we are transitioning, because about $8 trillion of the $11 trillion in home mortgage debt is funded by investors in both Agency and private label mortgage-backed securities. Of that $8 trillion, some 70% is held by investors in rate-sensitive Agency MBS, with the balance in credit-sensitive private-label MBS. There isn’t enough capital for the universe of credit-sensitive private-label MBS investors to supplant the installed base of rates buyers, at least not at the current price. Without the support of mortgage values and home prices that is provided by the government guarantee, the funding hole of $8 trillion will get smaller only by shrinking the value of the housing collateral and the mortgages needed to finance them. At its essence, then, any transition to a new housing finance system has to factor in the speed with which these values will change.

In conclusion, I believe that Fannie and Freddie should continue to operate in conservatorship with a goal of winding down their retained portfolios over a set period of time and honoring the guarantees of the Agencies. For simplicity’s sake, and the markets like certainty and simplicity, going forward Congress should consider delivering explicit government guarantees on MBS in a manner similar to Ginnie Mae. This would enable it to continue to serve as the portal between the borrower and the secondary market through securitization and the TBA mechanism, but most importantly enforce underwriting standards for mortgages carrying the government guarantee.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, I look forward to answering your questions.