Image source: The Motley Fool.
DATE
Tuesday, April 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. ET
CALL PARTICIPANTS
- Chief Executive Officer — Peter Federico
- Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer — Bernice Bell
Need a quote from a Motley Fool analyst? Email [email protected]
TAKEAWAYS
- Comprehensive Loss -- $0.18 per common share, reflecting the impact of wider mortgage spreads to benchmark rates.
- Economic Return on Tangible Common Equity -- Negative 1.6%, comprised of $0.36 dividends declared per share and a $0.50 decline in tangible net book value per share.
- Tangible Net Book Value Recovery -- "As of late last week, our tangible net book value per common share was up approximately 6% for April or 5% net of our monthly dividend accrual."
- Leverage -- Ended the quarter at 7.4x tangible equity, up slightly from 7.2x at the previous quarter-end; average leverage was unchanged.
- Liquidity Position -- $7 billion in unencumbered cash and Agency MBS, equating to 60% of tangible equity.
- Net Spread and Dollar Roll Income -- $0.42 per common share, up $0.07 from the previous quarter, attributed to a 25 basis point increase in net interest spread.
- Portfolio Market Value -- $95 billion at quarter-end, with $1.7 billion in low coupon specified pool purchases and rotation toward lower coupon assets.
- Weighted Average Portfolio Coupon -- Declined to 4.95% from 5.12% the prior quarter.
- Hedge Portfolio Notional Balance -- Increased to $64 billion as shorter-term pay fixed swaps were added.
- Swap Hedge Allocation -- Rose to 78% of the hedge allocation from 70% the prior quarter, reflecting reduced use of treasury-based hedges.
- Average Projected Life CPR -- Increased 70 basis points to 10.3% due to prepayment model updates and portfolio composition changes.
- Actual CPR -- Averaged 13.2%, up from 9.7% in the previous quarter.
- Common Equity Issuance -- $401 million raised through at-the-market offerings at a premium to tangible net book value per share.
- TBA Position -- Average TBA position increased to 10.3% of the portfolio; improved implied financing levels versus prior quarters contributed to higher dollar roll income.
- Spread Differential -- Current coupon MBS to swaps ranged between 150 and 175 basis points in recent months, up from 135 basis points at the previous earnings call.
SUMMARY
AGNC Investment Corp. (AGNC +0.79%) experienced material spread widening in March following heightened geopolitical risk from Middle East conflict, which drove higher interest rate volatility and impacted investor sentiment. Management stated that "the return profile on Agency MBS is more attractive" at current spread levels, with average spreads to swaps recently between 150 and 175 basis points. Diversified demand increased as bond fund inflows doubled their pace from the prior two years, and U.S. bank regulatory proposals have made high-quality mortgage credit more favorable for banks. The company maintained a significant liquidity buffer and reflected opportunistic capital raising at a book premium, with deployment focused on low coupon specified pools and increased swap hedging activity.
- Management noted that "returns are kind of broadly in the 15% to 17% range. centered right around 16%, which aligns pretty well with our total cost of capital." at current spread levels.
- The company’s net spread and dollar roll income margin rose by 25 basis points to 2.06% and management described this as "above the long-run economics of the current environment."
- CEO Federico described the current leverage range as "very reasonable" and emphasized flexibility to adjust based on evolving market and policy conditions.
- Actions by the administration to improve housing affordability, such as potential increases in GSE portfolio limits or additional purchases, were framed as likely and could further support Agency MBS performance.
- Recent improvements in TBA implied financing levels were identified by management as opening new opportunities in portfolio strategy not available in prior years.
- Approximately 77% of AGNC’s portfolio now has favorable prepayment characteristics after recent positioning adjustments.
- The company expects near-term net spread and dollar roll income to remain in the "high 30s, low 40s" cent per share range for several quarters barring major market changes.
INDUSTRY GLOSSARY
- TBA (To-Be-Announced): A type of forward contract for mortgage-backed securities, allowing for future settlement of standardized MBS pools at specified coupons but without exact pool selection at trade initiation.
- CPR (Conditional Prepayment Rate): An annualized measure of principal prepayments on mortgage-backed securities, indicating the repayment speed of underlying loans.
- Specified Pools: Mortgage-backed security pools with selected loan attributes, offering protection against negative prepayment behavior.
- Dollar Roll Income: Income earned from simultaneously selling and agreeing to repurchase TBA MBS at a later date, effectively creating a financing spread.
- Swap Hedge: A position using interest rate swaps to manage interest rate exposure, typically employed to reduce duration risk in a mortgage REIT portfolio.
- Standing Repo Program: A Federal Reserve facility permitting eligible counterparties to obtain overnight funding with Treasury and agency collateral, designed to enhance market liquidity.
Full Conference Call Transcript
Peter Federico: Good morning, and thank you all for joining our first quarter earnings conference call. Agency MBS performance in the first quarter was driven by 2 very divergent investment themes. In January and February, the administration's focus on reducing interest rate volatility, maintaining mortgage spread stability and improving housing affordability and drove strong performance across the fixed income markets. Agency MBS performance was particularly strong during this period as President Trump's January 8 directive instructing the GSEs to purchase $200 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities, pushed spreads through the lower end of the recent 3-year trading range.
In March, however, uncertainty associated with the war in Iran and the potential for a more widespread conflict in the Middle East caused interest rate volatility to increase investor sentiment to turn negative and Agency MBS spreads to widen significantly. As a result, AGNC's economic return in the first quarter was negative 1.6%. Despite the spread widening to swaps quarter-over-quarter, Agency MBS outperformed U.S. treasuries and investment-grade corporate bonds in the first quarter, again demonstrating the diversification benefits of this unique, high credit quality fixed income asset class. At the beginning of the year, I discussed a number of factors that we believe would benefit Agency MBS performance in 2026.
Among these were low interest rate volatility and an accommodative monetary policy stance. In the first quarter, however, the Middle East conflict caused interest rate volatility to increase and Fed rate cuts to become more uncertain. While the duration and economic implications of the conflict are still unknown, recent developments are encouraging, and these factors could once again be positive catalysts for Agency MBS performance. More importantly, many of the other factors that I discussed actually improved in the first quarter and now further strengthen the outlook for Agency MBS. Most notably, at current spread levels, the return profile on Agency MBS is more attractive.
At the time of our fourth quarter earnings conference call, the spread differential between current [ coupon ] MBS and a blend of swaps was 135 basis points. Over the last 2 months, that spread has ranged between 150 and 175 basis points as a result of heightened geopolitical and macroeconomic risks. We believe Agency MBS in this spread range represent compelling value on both an absolute and relative basis. The supply outlook for Agency MBS also improved in the first quarter.
At the start of the year, the net new supply of Agency MBS was expected to be approximately $250 billion assuming a mortgage rate of just below 6% with mortgage rates now about 50 basis points higher, MBS supply could be $50 billion to $70 billion lower this year. The demand outlook for Agency MBS improved in the first quarter as well. Money manager demand for MBS increased materially in the first quarter as bond fund inflows came in about double the pace of the previous 2 years. U.S. bank regulators also released their proposed bank regulatory capital framework for common. As expected, the proposal includes lower capital requirements for high-quality mortgage credit.
These favorable capital requirements could lead banks to retain a greater share of mortgage credit in whole loan form or to utilize the private label securitization path to a greater extent, thereby reducing the GSE footprint over time. Finally, with mortgage spreads wider and the mortgage rate now in the low to mid-6% range, the administration may take further actions to improve housing affordability. Such actions could include more aggressive GSE purchases or increases in GSE portfolio size limits. Either or both of these actions would benefit mortgage performance.
In addition, while the funding markets for Agency MBS are deep and liquid, further actions by the Fed to improve the functionality and accessibility of the standing repo program could also be catalysts for tighter mortgage spreads and lower mortgage rates. In summary, although the sharp increase in geopolitical and macroeconomic risk, creates a more challenging investment environment over the near term, the return profile and technical backdrop for Agency mortgage-backed securities improved in the first quarter. In addition, actions by the administration to improve housing affordability are more likely. As we are continually reminded, market conditions change quickly.
A prompt resolution to the Middle East conflict while at times difficult to predict could lead to a substantial reduction in volatility and inflationary pressures. Collectively, these conditions support our favorable outlook for agency mortgage-backed securities. Moreover, AGNC remains well positioned to capitalize on these favorable conditions and build upon our lengthy track record of generating strong risk-adjusted returns for our stockholders over a wide range of market cycles. With that, I will now turn the call over to Bernie Bell to discuss our financial results in greater detail.
Bernice Bell: Thank you, Peter. For the first quarter, AGNC reported a comprehensive loss of $0.18 per common share. Our economic return on tangible common equity was negative 1.6% for the quarter, consisting of $0.36 of dividends declared per common share and a $0.50 decrease in tangible net book value per share, driven by wider mortgage spreads to benchmark rates. As of late last week, our tangible net book value per common share was up approximately 6% for April or 5% net of our monthly dividend accrual. With the recovery in April through the end of last week, our tangible net book value has now largely reversed the first quarter decline.
We ended the first quarter with leverage of 7.4x tangible equity up slightly from 7.2x as of Q4, while average leverage for the quarter was unchanged at 7.4x. We also ended the quarter with a significant liquidity position of $7 billion of unencumbered cash and Agency MBS, representing 60% of tangible equity. Net spread and dollar roll income was $0.42 per common share for the quarter, up $0.07 from the fourth quarter.
The increase was largely due to a 25 basis point increase in our net interest spread, which was driven by a combination of a greater allocation of interest rate swaps in our hedge portfolio, lower repo funding costs, more favorable TBA implied financing levels and a modest increase in the yield on our asset portfolio. Our quarter-over-quarter results also benefited from reduced compensation expense as our fourth quarter results included year-end incentive compensation accrual adjustments. The average projected life CPR of our portfolio increased 70 basis points to 10.3% at quarter end from 9.6% as of Q4.
The increase was largely due to prepayment model updates implemented in the first quarter and portfolio composition changes, partly offset by higher mortgage rates. Actual CPRs averaged 13.2% for the quarter compared to 9.7% in the prior quarter. Lastly, during the first quarter, we issued $401 million of common equity through our at-the-market offering program at a significant premium to tangible net book value per share, continuing our active capital management strategy and generating meaningful accretion for our common stockholders. And with that, I will now turn the call back over to Peter to discuss our portfolio.
Peter Federico: Thank you, Bernie. Agency MBS performance varied meaningfully by coupon and hedge type in the first quarter. Low coupon MBS meaningfully outperformed high-coupon MBS due to heavy index buying from money managers in response to outsized bond fund inflows. This variation in performance by coupon was significant with lower coupon MBS tightening about 10 basis points to treasuries during the quarter, while higher coupon MBS widened about 5 basis points on average. MBS performance also varied materially by hedge type as swap spreads tightened during the quarter. 10-year swap spreads, for example, tightened by almost 10 basis points.
As a result, and MBS position hedged with a 10-year pay fixed swap versus a 10-year treasury, experienced spread widening of about 10 basis points, all else equal. This tightening in swap spreads was directly related to Middle East uncertainty. The market value of our portfolio totaled $95 billion at quarter end, during the quarter, we purchased $1.7 billion of predominantly low coupon specified pools. In addition, we rotated a portion of our portfolio down in coupon. Consistent with these changes, the weighted average coupon on our portfolio declined to 4.95% from 5.12% the prior quarter, and the percentage of our assets with favorable prepayment characteristics increased slightly to 77%.
The notional balance of our hedge portfolio increased to $64 billion due to the addition of shorter-term pay fixed swaps prior to the sharp sell-off in interest rates in March. We also reduced our exposure to treasury-based hedges during the quarter. As a result, in duration dollar terms, our swap hedge allocation increased to 78% from 70% the prior quarter. Lastly, in the current environment, we continue to favor operating with a positive duration gap which we view as additional prepayment protection in a down rate scenario. With that, we'll now open the call up to your questions.
Operator: [Operator Instructions]. The first question comes from Bose George with KBW.
Bose George: Peter, you mentioned for spreads that you compared to spread level at the earnings call last time where it is now. But if you compare it from the end of the fourth quarter to where it is now, are the returns pretty comparable? And what is the ROE currently imply?
Peter Federico: Yes. Thanks for that question, Bose. Yes, that's a good way of putting it. In fact, Bernie mentioned that our year-to-date book value is almost unchanged from the end of the fourth quarter. So when you think back about where mortgage spreads were, again, I always kind of refer to them off the current coupon to the blend of the swap curve, but they were right in that neighborhood of around 150 basis points. And then when we got the announcement on the purchases of the -- from the GSEs, it really pushed them, as you recall, about 15 -- maybe 16 basis points tighter got us down to the [ 135 ] level.
And now we're right back to where we were this morning, there are about 151 basis points. And at that level, that's the swap curve. The current coupon to treasuries is about 120-or-so basis points to the curve, not to a specific point on the treasury curve. But you're looking at an average spread of somewhere between 140 and 150 depending on what amount of swaps we use. And at that level, I would say returns are kind of broadly in the 15% to 17% range. centered right around 16%, which aligns pretty well with our total cost of capital.
Bose George: Okay. Great. And then actually, it looks like specialness improved a little bit. Can you just talk about that and how much of a contribution that is now?
Peter Federico: Yes. No, that's a very significant change from what we've really observed over the last couple of years, the TBA position, we've talked about it, our TBA position has not been very significant because the implied financing levels on TBA have really been unattractive. And in fact, for a lot of the last 2 years, TBA implied financing levels were well through, in some cases, the repo levels. And that really dates back to the regional banking crisis in 2023, where it was the combination of the regional banking crisis. It was QT, it was regulation. It was just a lot of things putting a lot of pressure on balance sheets. And that really had an implication for TBA funding.
What we've seen is a lot of that pressure easing, and we really got the benefit of it in the fourth quarter. Obviously, the Fed has stopped Q2. Importantly, at the end of last year, they started reserve management purchases and growing their balance sheet with really eased funding pressures. They rebranded the standing repo facility to be the standing repo program. And then, of course, we now, as we expected, got reform to the original Basel [ Endgame ]. All those things have been really positive for funding, reducing balance sheet constraints. And as a result, the TBA implied financing levels are generally back to through or equal to repo levels.
And in fact, for several coupons, they've actually been meaningfully better than TBA finance. So we were able to take advantage of that in the first quarter with our TBA position. We actually had both longs and shorts in our TBA position, which contributed to the uptick in our dollar roll income. So we expect these implied financing levels to sort of remain in this level in this area. So it's a new opportunity for us that we haven't had over the last couple of years.
Operator: The next question comes from Crispin Love with Piper Sandler.
Crispin Love: Just on quarter earnings. [ Net spread ] dollar roll income, very strong in the first quarter. I think since a year ago, can you just some of the dynamics there, the sustainability yields higher cost of [indiscernible], and you just had mentioned some of those financing dynamics. But can I think that's even if you just going a little bit down in coupon. So just as you look forward, would you expect core earnings to compress a little bit closer to the dividend. Just any thoughts there?
Peter Federico: Yes. No, great question. You're right. When you think about our net spread and dollar roll income and our margin, our margin, as Bernie mentioned, did increase 25 basis points to 2.06. And if you think about that on a return on equity basis, that's really close to 20%. I would describe that as being above the long-run economics of the current environment. But if you're looking for sort of a range, and we talked about this when our net spread and dollar roll income was down around $0.35, $0.36, we said generally that we thought it was going to move up.
So I would say that probably a good range of expectation over the relatively near term mean several quarters would be high 30s and low 40s. And some of the things that we talked about definitely showed up, particularly, as I just mentioned, the same benefits that we saw in the TBA implied financing levels, obviously, that's a tailwind now. But just more broadly and more importantly, the easing of repo pressures that we -- thanks to the Fed and their activities really made a big difference.
If you recall, we were seeing real significant month end and quarter end pricing pressure in the repo market that has abated and repo is now trading right where the Fed wants it in the middle of the Fed funds target. Obviously, the timing of capital raises and how we deploy that capital can have a little bit of period-to-period implications. But generally speaking, I feel like the range that I talked about is probably the right range, somewhere in the high 30s, low 40s in terms of net spread and dollar roll income.
Crispin Love: Okay. That makes sense. And then just on hedging. Hedge ratio, it ticked up a little bit, but still fairly low when you look at historical levels. So just in today's environment, the war rate fall the administration being supportive of the housing sector. Just how comfortable are you with the current levels in that 65% to 75% range versus if you, going back a little bit, you were at 90% plus in the past?
Peter Federico: Well, it goes back to the -- really what we talked about in the fourth quarter is we were positioned and we still are positioned. You're right. Our hedge ratio increase -- and the hedge ratio that I'd like to look at is the 1 net of our receiver swaptions, which is about 8%. And that tells you that we are still positioned to benefit from lower short-term rates, meaning that if short-term rates go down, we would ultimately could close that hedge ratio.
And we did some of that in the first quarter because there was a period of time in the first quarter, where if you recall, the 2-year rate and 2-year swap spreads really got down into the -- I think they dropped down to around [ 3.18 ], maybe it was the lowest, right? So not that far off of where the Fed's neutral target is. Obviously, that's not known right now, but it's probably somewhere in the -- right around 3% as to Fed's neutral target. So as short-term rates approach that long-run neutral target, it would make sense for us to close our hedge ratio and move higher, essentially lock in that of funding.
Obviously, there's a lot more uncertainty about the direction of short-term rates right now. In fact, during the first quarter, we went from pricing in 2 eases at least to, in effect, at one point during the quarter when the really going there was expectation of Fed tightening. So we have more uncertainty on that, but still long run, we think that this ultimately will be resolved and that some of the underlying fundamentals will come back and that the Fed will ultimately adopt a more accommodative monetary policy stance later in the quarter, and we should stand to benefit from that.
So I would describe us as sort of as neutral right now in terms of changes to our hedge position. But we did close it a little bit when we had the opportunity.
Operator: The next question comes from Marissa Lobo with UBS.
Ameeta Lobo Nelson: So how do you think about optimal leverage in a policy supportive environment, but where near-term volatility keeps remaining a recurring feature?
Peter Federico: Yes. Certainly, an important question in today's environment. I guess I would start by saying, from our perspective, when we think about our leverage, we obviously are thinking about our leverage and setting our leverage according to the spread range that we expect to be operating and we saw that really play out really well for us in terms of being well positioned for the volatility and the spread volatility that we incurred in the first quarter. Obviously, you saw us grow our portfolio.
And the key as a levered investor is you want to make sure that you have sufficient excess liquidity to withstand all of the uncertainty and stressful environments that we ultimately encounter on a regular basis and not have to change the asset composition, not have to delever your portfolio. And we've been able to successfully do that because we sized our position accordingly. And during the quarter, for example, our leverage sort of stayed right in this range, maybe got as low as 7% and maybe got as high as 7.5%. And so we have to wait and see how the environment unfolds.
Obviously, there's a lot that can change and a lot that will change over the next quarter or 2, both with respect to the economic outlook, the monetary policy outlook, the geopolitical uncertainty that we face. And then the administration and what actions that they may take that will ultimately impact housing affordability. All those will go to inform us as to what the right the right leverage level is. But importantly, we are able to operate now in today's environment where spreads are, and particularly since spreads have widened, with a very reasonable leverage position and still generate excellent returns for shareholders. That gives us a lot of ability.
What we're trying to do is we're trying to generate the best return we can while putting ourselves in a position to preserve book value across a wide range of market conditions. So we're always trying to optimize that. We will be informed over time whether or not we have to take our leverage up or take our leverage down based on the market conditions and the stability of spreads. If we get the war resolved, if the inflation pressures come down, Fed's more accommodative.
And importantly, the administration goes back to focusing as they were on interest rate, volatility, in reducing interest rate value and importantly, reducing agency spread volatility, then ultimately, it would be a favorable environment we could operate with potentially a different leverage profile. But we certainly like the leverage profile that we're operating right now.
Ameeta Lobo Nelson: And then moving to GSE activity. It's been framed as more opportunistic than programmatic. How does that shape your trading strategy and your coupon selection relative value trade?
Peter Federico: Yes, that's a great question because it goes back to your previous point about leverage. One of the things that we did expect, and it's very difficult to tell what we kind of realized with the GSEs is while they put out their portfolio numbers to their monthly volume summary is about a month after the fact. I don't believe that those numbers capture their TBA position. So it's not quite clear exactly what the growth is of the GSEs quarter-over-quarter. But what I would say, and I would fully expect and I believe that they do this is that they would approach this from a really economic perspective.
And when mortgage spreads widen, particularly like they did, in March, I would expect the GSEs to take advantage of that. They're not only putting on more profitable book of business, but importantly, they're serving a very important role in the market, which is to reduce interest rate volatility. And excuse me, not interest rate but mortgage spread volatility. And that ultimately is beneficial to the mortgage rate. So I do think that they would approach it that way from an opportunistic perspective and ultimately, the more that they do that, the more other capital gets attracted to the system.
And one of the things that really will benefit mortgage rates and mortgage spreads is having a more diverse investor base. And we're starting to see that now. We're seeing that on the bank side, with the changes in bank capital. I do believe that banks will be a bigger buyer. We're seeing that with money managers. We're seeing foreign investors start to come back into the market. And obviously, to the extent that mortgage spread volatility comes down, in part due to the actions of the GSEs that allows more levered money to come into the system. That's a virtuous cycle that will ultimately lead to lower mortgage rates.
So I think that's a critical role that the GSEs do play and can continue to play.
Operator: The next question comes from Trevor Cranston with Citizens JMP.
Trevor Cranston: Peter. A follow-up on the question you were just talking about with leverage. It looks like you guys didn't really add much to the portfolio during the widening in March, at least based on the quarter end numbers. Can you talk about kind of what you would need to see in the future belts of volatility in order to significantly add to the portfolio? And if the GSE is sort of being there is a potential buyer and widening scenarios sort of gives you any added confidence and potentially adding if spreads are to widen again in the future?
Peter Federico: Yes, you're right. We didn't -- our portfolio growth in the first quarter was, as I mentioned, $1.7 billion. And that was true, obviously, at the end of the quarter. Obviously, we have seen more stability in the market since quarter end, importantly, obviously, given the change in tone and what's happening in the conflict. And so to the extent, as I mentioned that in my prepared remarks, to the extent that we continue to see positive developments that will ultimately change the macroeconomic outlook and particularly the inflationary implications it would be positive from a growth perspective.
So we do -- as I mentioned, I do believe that mortgages in this 150 to 160 range where we've been trading our attractive long run, and I do expect mortgage spreads to tighten over time once we have more resolution and once the monetary policy outlook starts to become more clear. So over time, that can all happen. And I do -- again, I do think that the GSE is stepping in and buying mortgages when they [ cheap ], if the fact that's what they have done, I think that would ultimately be positive.
Trevor Cranston: Okay. That makes sense. And I think you said with the -- for the purposes you guys made during the first quarter, they were in lower coupons. Can you just maybe add some detail around that kind of where you guys are buying in the coupon deck and finding the best value right now?
Peter Federico: Yes. We did both is our purchases, even though it was less than $2 billion, our purchases were concentrated in lower coupon specified pools. And importantly, we also did rotate a portion of our portfolio into lower coupons. And the reason why we did that is because we track on almost a daily basis, bond fund inflows, and we did see that bond fund inflows were coming in materially faster in the first quarter than the previous couple of years. So we knew that, that would ultimately translate to the outperformance of lower coupons. And now that has abated somewhat. So we are always looking for opportunities to move up in coupon, move down in coupon, be opportunistic.
We're able to do that in the first quarter to some extent and we'll continue to look for opportunities. We have seen bond fund inflows starting to actually slow down quite a bit. In fact, I think quarter-to-date, they're probably running slower than the pace of the previous 2 years in the second quarter of the year. So we'll watch that closely, but there was an opportunity in low coupons. So we took advantage of that. and we'll continue to be opportunistic. Any follow-up on that, Trevor?
Trevor Cranston: No. That's very helpful.
Operator: And our last question comes from the line of Harsh Hemnani with Green Street.
Harsh Hemnani: Peter, maybe can you talk a little bit about the timing of the equity raises last quarter on the prior earnings call, it sounded like it would be more opportunistic and given everything that happened with spreads this quarter. Could you share some color on timing of those equity raises? And then can we expect the rest of the year to be similarly opportunistic?
Peter Federico: Yes. Thank you for that, Harsh. Yes, I think you characterized at least my expectation from the last call that I did -- if I go back to the fourth quarter earnings call, I would say that my expectation for the capital issuance would have been a little slower than what we ultimately did. As Bernie mentioned, it was about $400 million in the first quarter. And the reason why that ended up being a little faster than the pace that I had anticipated was, obviously, I didn't anticipate all of the volatility that we saw. And so having more capital certainly is beneficial from that perspective.
But importantly, when you think about the economic benefit to our existing shareholders of that capital, it was significant in the first quarter. Obviously, the capital that we raised was accretive from a book value perspective given the fact that we are trading at a premium to book. But also it was significantly accretive from an earnings perspective because we're able to deploy those proceeds. And we haven't deployed them all yet, by the way, but we have deployed most of them. We were able to deploy that at returns, call it, like, as I mentioned, at around [ 16 or so percent ]. And you can compare that to what the dividend yield on the stock is around 13.5%.
So it's accretive from an earnings perspective. It's accretive from a book value perspective and having more capital in times of volatility is certainly beneficial and it gives us the opportunity now to take advantage of that. We -- there's a lot of times when -- the issuance of the capital does not align perfectly from a timing perspective with the deployment of it. Part of it is our risk management strategy, part of it is trying to be opportunistic, waiting for the right opportunity to deploy those proceeds and assets at really attractive return levels.
And so that's the approach we took in the first quarter and feel like we're in a good position as we start the second quarter.
Harsh Hemnani: Got it. That's helpful. And then maybe you talked early in the call about [ role ] specialists improving and that should lead to more DDA in the portfolio. I guess how are you comparing those percentages versus maybe capitalizing on the better [ role ] specialists versus still seeking some prepayment protection with specified pools?
Peter Federico: Yes. So a couple of points there. One, it doesn't necessarily -- the role specialists may not necessarily translate into an a net TBA position that's materially bigger. For example, our average TBA position in the first quarter was, I think, 10.3% versus 9.6% the previous quarter, yet our income was materially higher. And that is because, as I mentioned, we can't have offsetting positions there that will allow us to take advantage of the TBA specialness in particular, also not only did conventional TBA implied specialist levels improve, but we have as we -- as has been the case for now several quarters, there's significant specialists in the Ginnie Mae market. So we'll continue to do that.
You may not necessarily see though, an uptick in the aggregate size of our TBA position. To your point about specified pools, we obviously still are in this environment very focused on managing prepayment exposure. We do believe that over time, once this uncertainty abates, that prepayment risk will be sort of our predominant risk. And as I mentioned, we are operating now with -- from a positive prepayment pool characteristic perspective, a significant portion of our portfolio, 75% -- 77% of our portfolio, for example, has some prepayment characteristics that we deem to be valuable, and we will continue to do that.
What's important is, in this environment, because TBA implied financing levels are where they are, we are able to now deploy capital quickly in TBA, not lose carry because of the funding levels. It gives us more time to then slowly over time rotate out of TBAs into specified pools when those opportunities exist. That has not been the case for the last couple of years. To have a TBA position while you holding that while you wait for the opportunity to rotate into specified pools actually has cost us carry today in this environment, that's not the case.
So it gives us a lot of flexibility to deploy capital and then ultimately rotate into specified pools, but we will continue to operate with a high percent of specified pools in this environment. We also, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we'll likely continue to operate with a positive duration gap. In fact, our duration gap in the first quarter was a little higher than what we've reported for the last couple quarters because we do want to position our portfolio to benefit from that in a lower rate scenario.
Operator: We have now completed the question-and-answer session. I'd like to turn the call back over to Peter Federico, for concluding remarks.
Peter Federico: Well, again, I appreciate everybody joining the call this morning. We look forward to talking to you again after our second quarter.
Operator: Thank you for joining the call. You may now disconnect.
