Since June 2017, an affiliate of Ellington has sponsored four CLO securitization transactions (the "Ellington-sponsored CLO Securitizations"), collateralized by corporate loans and managed by an affiliate of Ellington (the "CLO Manager"). Ellington, the Company, several other affiliates of Ellington, and in certain cases, third parties, participated in the Ellington-sponsored CLO Securitizations (collectively, the "CLO Co-Participants").

The CLO Issuers are each deemed to be a VIE. The Company evaluates its interests in the CLO Issuers under ASC 810, and while the Company retains credit risk in each of the securitization trusts through its beneficial ownership of a portion of the subordinated interests of each of the securitization trusts, which are the first to absorb credit losses on the securitized assets, the Company does not retain control of these assets or the power to direct the activities of the CLO Issuers that most significantly impact the CLO Issuers' economic performance. As a result, the Company determined that it is not the primary beneficiary of the CLO Issuers, and therefore the Company has not consolidated the CLO Issuers. The Company's maximum amount at risk is limited to the Company's investment in each of the CLO Issuers. As of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the fair value of the Company's investment in the notes issued by the CLO Issuers was $11.3 million and $27.6 million, respectively.

Since November 2017, the Company, through certain wholly owned subsidiaries (each, a "Sponsor"), has sponsored securitizations of non-QM loans. In each case, the applicable Sponsor transferred a pool of non-QM loans (each, a Collateral Pool") to a wholly owned entity (each, a "Depositor") and on the closing date such loans were deposited into newly created securitization trusts (collectively, the "Issuing Entities"). Pursuant to the securitizations, the Issuing Entities issued various classes of mortgage pass-through certificates (the "Certificates") which are backed by the cash flows from the underlying non-QM loans.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, sponsors of securitizations are generally required to retain at least 5% of the economic interest in the credit risk of the securitized assets (the "Risk Retention Rules"). In order to comply with the Risk Retention Rules, in each securitization, the Company purchased and intends to hold, at a minimum, the requisite amount of the most subordinated classes of Certificates and the excess cash flow certificates. The applicable Sponsor also purchased the Certificates entitled to excess servicing fees in each securitization, while the remaining classes of Certificates were purchased by unrelated parties.

Notwithstanding that the Certificates carry final scheduled distribution dates in November 2059 or later, the applicable Depositor may, at its sole option, purchase all of the outstanding Certificates (an "Optional Redemption") following the earlier of (1) the applicable anniversary of the closing date (typically two or three years) of the respective securitization or (2) the date on which the aggregate unpaid principal balance of the applicable Collateral Pool has declined below 30% of the aggregate unpaid principal balance of the applicable Collateral Pool as of the date as of which such loans were originally transferred to the applicable Issuing Entity. The purchase price that the Depositor is required to pay in connection with an Optional Redemption is equal to the sum of the unpaid principal balance of each class of Certificates as of the redemption date and any accrued and unpaid interest thereon. In light of these Optional Redemption rights held by the applicable Depositor, the transfers of non-QM loans to each of the Issuing Entities do not qualify as sales under ASC 860-10.

Each Sponsor also serves as the servicing administrator of its respective securitization, for which it is entitled to receive a monthly fee equal to one-twelfth of the product of (a) 0.03% and (b) the unpaid principal balance of the underlying non-QM loans as of the first day of the related due period. Each Sponsor in its role as servicing administrator provides direction and consent for certain loss mitigation activities to the third-party servicer of the underlying non-QM loans. In certain circumstances, the servicing administrator will be required to reimburse the servicer for principal and interest advances and servicing advances made by the servicer.

In light of the Company's retained interests in each of the securitizations, together with the Optional Redemption rights and the Company's ability to direct the third-party servicer regarding certain loss mitigation activities, the Company is deemed to be the primary beneficiary of the Issuing Entities, which are VIEs, and has consolidated the Issuing Entities. Interest income from these loans and the expenses related to the servicing of these loans are included in Interest income and Investment related expenses—Servicing expense, respectively, on the Consolidated Statement of Operations.

The Issuing Entities each meet the definition of a CFE as defined in Note 2, and as a result the assets of each of the Issuing Entities have been valued using the fair value of the liabilities of the respective Issuing Entity, as such liabilities have been assessed to be more observable than such assets.


Issuing Entity	Closing Date	Principal Balance of Loans Transferred to the Depositor		Total Face Amount of Certificates Issued
		(In thousands)
Ellington Financial Mortgage Trust 2019-2	11/19	$	267,255	$	267,255	(1)
Ellington Financial Mortgage Trust 2020-1	6/20	259,273		259,273		(2)
Ellington Financial Mortgage Trust 2020-2	10/20	219,732		219,732		(3)
Ellington Financial Mortgage Trust 2021-1	2/21	251,771		251,771		(4)
Ellington Financial Mortgage Trust 2021-2	6/21	331,777		331,777		(5)
Ellington Financial Mortgage Trust 2021-3	10/21	257,645		257,645		(6)
Ellington Financial Mortgage Trust 2022-1	1/22	417,188		417,188		(7)
Ellington Financial Mortgage Trust 2022-2	4/22	425,651		425,651		(8)

(1)In order to comply with the Risk Retention Rules, the Sponsor purchased the two most subordinated classes of Certificates and the excess cash flow certificates, with an aggregate value as of the settlement date equal to 6.4% of the fair value of all Certificates issued. The Sponsor also purchased, for an aggregate purchase price of $1.7 million, the Certificates entitled to excess servicing fees, while the remaining classes of Certificates were purchased by unrelated third parties.

(2)In order to comply with the Risk Retention Rules, the Sponsor purchased the most subordinated class of Certificates and the excess cash flow certificates, with an aggregate value as of the settlement date equal to 5.1% of the fair value of all Certificates issued. Additionally, the Sponsor purchased two other subordinated classes of Certificates with an aggregate value equal to 6.4% of the fair value of all Certificates issued as of the settlement date; the Company subsequently sold such subordinated classes of Certificates to third parties. Finally, the Sponsor also purchased, for an aggregate purchase price of $1.9 million, the Certificates entitled to excess servicing fees, while the remaining classes of Certificates were purchased by unrelated third parties.

(3)In order to comply with the Risk Retention Rules, the Sponsor purchased the excess cash flow certificates, with an aggregate value as of the settlement date equal to 5.2% of the fair value of all Certificates issued. Additionally, the Sponsor purchased the most subordinated class of Certificates with an aggregate value as of the settlement date equal to 2.4% of the fair value of all Certificates issued. Finally, the Sponsor also purchased, for an aggregate purchase price of $1.4 million, the Certificates entitled to excess servicing fees, while the remaining classes of Certificates were purchased by unrelated third parties.

(4)In order to comply with the Risk Retention Rules, the Sponsor purchased the excess cash flow certificates, with an aggregate value as of the settlement date equal to 5.4% of the fair value of all Certificates issued. Additionally, the Sponsor purchased the most subordinated class of Certificates with an aggregate value as of the settlement date equal to 0.4% of the fair value of all Certificates issued. Finally, the Sponsor also purchased, for an aggregate purchase price of $1.6 million, the Certificates entitled to excess servicing fees, while the remaining classes of Certificates were purchased by unrelated third parties.

(5)In order to comply with the Risk Retention Rules, the Sponsor purchased the most subordinated class of Certificates and the excess cash flow certificates, with an aggregate value as of the settlement date equal to 6.5% of the fair value of all Certificates issued. The Sponsor also purchased, for an aggregate purchase price of $2.1 million, the Certificates entitled to excess servicing fees, while the remaining classes of Certificates were purchased by unrelated third parties.

(6)In order to comply with the Risk Retention Rules, the Sponsor purchased the most subordinated class of Certificates and the excess cash flow certificates, with an aggregate value as of the settlement date equal to 6.3% of the fair value of all Certificates issued. Additionally, the Sponsor purchased one other subordinated class of Certificates with an aggregate value equal to 2.0% of the fair value of all Certificates issued as of the settlement date; the Company subsequently sold such subordinated class of Certificates to third parties. The Sponsor also purchased, for an aggregate purchase price of $1.8 million, the Certificates entitled to excess servicing fees, while the remaining classes of Certificates were purchased by unrelated third parties.

(7)In order to comply with the Risk Retention Rules, the Sponsor purchased the most subordinated class of Certificates and the excess cash flow certificates, with an aggregate value as of the settlement date equal to 5.3% of the fair value of all Certificates issued. The Sponsor also purchased, for an aggregate purchase price of $3.6 million, the Certificates entitled to excess servicing fees, while the remaining classes of Certificates were purchased by unrelated third parties.

(8)In order to comply with the Risk Retention Rules, the Sponsor purchased the two most subordinated class of Certificates and the excess cash flow certificates, with an aggregate value as of the settlement date equal to 5.6% of the fair value of all Certificates issued. The Sponsor also purchased, for an aggregate purchase price of $1.3 million, the Certificates entitled to excess servicing fees, while the remaining classes of Certificates were purchased by unrelated third parties.

The Company has participated in various securitizations whereby the Company, together with certain other entities managed by Ellington (the "Consumer Co-Participants"), sold consumer loans to newly formed securitization trusts (each a "Consumer Securitization Issuer"). The sales were accounted for as sales in accordance with ASC 860-10. The following table provides additional details for each such securitization.


Securitization Closing	UPB of Loans Sold to Consumer Securitization Issuer		% Contributed by the Company		Principal Amount of Notes Issued(1)		% Ownership of Consumer Risk Retention Vehicle
November 2020	$	205,088	56.3	%	$	193,650	56.3	%
March 2022(2)	193,450		24.7	%	400,000		24.6	%

(2)UPB of loans sold to the Consumer Securitization Issuer represent the UPB of consumer loans sold by the Company and the Consumer Co-Participants. Such amount excludes $227.6 million of UPB of consumer loans sold to the Consumer Securitization Issuer by a third-party.

As shown in the above table, pursuant to each of the securitizations, the respective Consumer Securitization Issuer issued senior and subordinated notes. Trust certificates representing beneficial ownership of each of the Consumer Securitization Issuers were also issued. In connection with each transaction, through a jointly owned newly formed entity (each a "Consumer Risk Retention Vehicle"), the Company and the Consumer Co-Participants acquired certain of the subordinated notes as well as the trust certificates in the respective Consumer Securitization Issuer. As of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Company's total interest in the Consumer Risk Retention Vehicles, for which the Company has elected the FVO, was $10.0 million and $11.5 million, respectively. The fair value of the Consumer Risk Retention Vehicles is included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet in Investments in unconsolidated entities, at fair value.

The notes and trust certificates issued by each of the Consumer Securitization Issuers are backed by the cash flows from the underlying consumer loans. If there are breaches of representations and warranties with respect to any underlying consumer loans, the Company could, under certain circumstances, be required to repurchase or replace such loans. Absent such breaches, the Company has no obligation to repurchase or replace any underlying consumer loans that become delinquent or otherwise default. In addition, another affiliate of Ellington acts as the administrator for these securitizations and is paid a monthly fee for its services.

The Consumer Securitization Issuers are each deemed to be a VIE. The Company has evaluated its interest in each of the Consumer Securitization Issuers under ASC 810, and while the Company retains credit risk in each of the securitization trusts through its beneficial ownership of most of the subordinated interests of each of the securitization trusts, which are the first to absorb credit losses on the securitized assets, neither the Company nor the Consumer Risk Retention Vehicles retain control of these assets or the power to direct the activities of the Consumer Securitization Issuers that most significantly impact the Consumer Securitization Issuers' economic performance. As a result, the Company determined that neither the Company nor the Consumer Risk Retention Vehicles are the primary beneficiary of the respective Consumer Securitization Issuer, and therefore the Company has not consolidated the Consumer Securitization Issuers. Additionally, the Company evaluated its interest in each of the Consumer Risk Retention Vehicles, which do not meet the criteria to be deemed a VIE, under the voting interest model provided by ASC 810 and determined the Company does not control the Consumer Risk Retention Vehicles. As a result, the Company has not consolidated the Consumer Risk Retention Vehicles.