Impact of Middle East Tensions on AGNC Q1 2026 Financial Performance

Likely impact of Middle East geopolitical tensions on AGNC’s Q1 2026 financial performance

AGNC’s Q1 2026 results show that Middle East geopolitical tensions primarily affected performance through interest-rate volatility and mortgage spread volatility, which then flowed into book value (tangible net book value) and economic return, as well as hedge effectiveness and spread-driven income dynamics.

1) Spread widening and higher volatility were direct headwinds in Q1 2026

Management explicitly links the Q1 2026 deterioration in rates/mortgage spread conditions to Middle East uncertainty:

• In March, “uncertainty associated with the war in Iran” and the potential for a wider Middle East conflict “caused interest rate volatility to increase… and Agency MBS spreads to widen significantly,” resulting in AGNC’s “economic return… [being] negative 1.6%” for the quarter.¹
• Consistent with this, AGNC reported a comprehensive loss of $0.18 per common share for Q1 2026.²
• The decline in tangible book value reflected those spread moves: tangible net book value per share decreased $0.50, described as “driven by wider mortgage spreads to benchmark rates.”²

Bottom line: The geopolitical tension likely contributed mainly by raising uncertainty, which increased rates/spread volatility and widened mortgage spreads—conditions that hurt AGNC’s mark-to-market book metrics and economic return in the quarter.¹²

---

2) Hedge-related price moves also reflected the geopolitical-driven market regime

AGNC’s performance is not only about spreads generally; it’s also about how specific hedge instruments respond when swap spreads and interest rates become more volatile.

• AGNC noted that “MBS performance also varied materially by hedge type,” and that “this tightening in swap spreads was directly related to Middle East uncertainty.”³
• For a specific hedge example—MBS hedged with a “10-year pay fixed swap versus a 10-year treasury”—AGNC states this produced spread widening of about 10 basis points, all else equal.³

Bottom line: Even when some instruments tighten (e.g., swap spreads), the net effect for AGNC’s particular hedge structure can be negative depending on relative moves across the curve and benchmark definitions, amplifying volatility-driven P&L and book volatility.³

---

3) Income did not collapse—income and liquidity provided partial offset

Although spreads widened and economic return was negative, AGNC still generated positive income and maintained liquidity:

• Net spread and dollar roll income was $0.42 per common share for the quarter, up $0.07 from Q4.²
• Management said the increase was “largely due to a 25 basis point increase in [its] net interest spread,” driven by factors including lower repo funding costs, more favorable TBA implied financing levels, and a “modest increase” in asset portfolio yield.²

Bottom line: Geopolitical tensions hurt spread-based economic return and book value, but they did not prevent AGNC from earning positive spread/dollar roll income—because funding/market-technical items and hedge portfolio allocation helped support earnings even in a stressful volatility regime.¹²

---

4) The “return profile” improved at the end of Q1, even after the geopolitical shock

Management argues that once volatility/spreads moved, the starting valuation for Agency MBS became more attractive:

• Management stated that “in the first quarter… Middle East conflict caused interest rate volatility to increase” and made Fed cuts “more uncertain,” but also that “recent developments are encouraging,” and “many of the other factors… improved… Most notably… at current spread levels, the return profile on Agency MBS is more attractive.”¹
• AGNC further summarized that geopolitical/macro risk created a “more challenging investment environment over the near term,” but the “return profile and technical backdrop… improved in the first quarter.”⁴

Bottom line: The geopolitical shock likely produced near-term drawdowns via spread widening, while also potentially setting up better risk/return at Q1 end—important for how Q2 performance might differ from Q1.¹⁴

---

5) Q1 leverage and liquidity positioning helped AGNC withstand volatility

Middle East-driven volatility is only financially dangerous if leverage/liquidity force deleveraging or unfavorable asset sales. AGNC emphasized it stayed properly positioned:

• AGNC ended the quarter with leverage of 7.4x (vs 7.2x as of Q4) and average leverage for the quarter was unchanged at 7.4x.²
• It ended Q1 with $7 billion of “unencumbered cash and Agency MBS,” representing **60% of tangible equity.”²
• Management characterized leverage management as being sized to tolerate “stressful environments” and to avoid having to “change the asset composition” or “delever.”⁵

Bottom line: Middle East tensions may increase the probability and magnitude of spread shocks, but AGNC’s reported leverage stability and large liquidity buffer likely reduced forced actions that would otherwise worsen financial results.²⁵

---

Overall assessment for Q1 2026

Based on management’s own causal descriptions, Middle East geopolitical tensions most likely impacted AGNC’s Q1 2026 financial performance through:

1. Higher interest rate volatility and wider Agency MBS spreads in March, driving negative economic return (-1.6%) and tangible net book value decline ($0.50 per share).¹²
2. Hedge-sensitive valuation effects tied to swap spread moves that management said were “directly related” to Middle East uncertainty.³
3. Partial earnings offset from still-positive net spread/dollar roll income ($0.42 per share) supported by financing and portfolio yield factors (including lower repo costs and more favorable TBA financing levels).²
4. Better end-of-quarter return profile at current spreads, despite near-term headwinds.¹⁴
5. Risk containment via stable leverage (7.4x) and substantial liquidity (60% of tangible equity unencumbered), limiting deleveraging risk during the volatility episode.²⁵

In short, the Middle East tensions appear to have been a dominant driver of the negative book/economic-return outcome in Q1 2026, while liquidity and financing conditions helped preserve positive earnings, leaving the net effect mixed rather than purely disastrous.¹²